"It's a sign of which corporations Team Trump thinks can generate jobs".
So he talks to Ginni "outsource as much as possible to sweatshop countries" Rometty.
Yeah. That makes sense.
Team Trump has announced the composition of the President's Strategic and Policy Forum – and there's no place for internet oligarchs like Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos or the world's fifth-richest man, Mark Zuckerberg. Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch has a seat, as does Ginni Rometty, head of everything at IBM. …
It looks like Trump has invited people that can create jobs for the lower-middle working class
This might work. He's old school and tech isn't in his knowledge base (except for Twitter). I would hope that this group's membership gets tweaked a bit as time moves on. Seems there's more than a few rust belt types on board that, given their history, will keep going that way.
If it doesn't work and the corporates carry on as they have been doing... expect a fire sale at bargain basement prices of whatever is left of the US manufacturing base.
FTR, I'm not a fan of the Trump or anyone else who ran for President this time around. But now we just have to sit back with the popcorn and see.
maybe the companies that Trump wants to hear from the most are the ones that are actively heading offshore??? Or maybe those that have been 'in trouble' for a while?
that and the shrill folk in Cali-fornicate-you have [unfortunately] become EXTREMELY hostile towards Trump, starting in "Silly Valley" and coming to a puss-filled boil in Sacramento. So "no" to Google, and Face-blank, and maybe even Intel, for that reason alone? And 'no' to Hollyweird, too.
Besides, look where things got with Obaka listening to "those guys". Gotta leave that behind, right?
Does Trump know how many people IBM fired, while sending its whole PC business to China? Or they got a post because Trump's typewriter has the logo "IBM" on it?
Walmart? A true creator of valuable jobs (and not an imported of cheap Chinese goods, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/economy/walmart-china-imports-job-losses.html)
(not that I have much sympathy for Facebook, Google & C.)
Jack Welch??? Perhaps you should revisit some history and look at just what Jack Welch managed to do with GE. I have no doubt that many in the crop of Internet billionaires/millionaires are very smart and talented but they're not the whole economy and they're not the real creators of jobs.
Internet companies on the whole employ a modest number of people in tech hubs. Apple and other tech hardware makers do most of their manufacturing in China.
Trump was voted in on the demand for the forgotten "working man" to be remembered again and given an opportunity to rebuild their good fortunes. Whether that's inclusive and equal opportunist is another matter but Trump is picking people qualified to deliver on that promise as opposed to the shinier side of life that emanates from Silicon Valley. And Jack Welch, as old as he may be, is still a very smart guy.
Of course the Donald may just be giving the finger to all the shiny people who stood with Hillary during the election??
umm - Jack Walsh - wasn't he that supposed idiot who used to hire engineers in the down turn; train them & then made a bundle of money renting them back to the companies that short sightedly fired them because of the down turn ? The guy who actually demonstrated that planning ahead (more than the 5 minutes the average bean counter/CEO seems to be able to manage) works out very nicely; just ride through the down turn and make hay when it (always) ends ?
Isn't that EXACTLY the type of person you should have advising any Politician ? Some one who would seem to understand that the business CYCLE is actually - er - cyclic ? And has demonstrated that he has an attention span of YEARS not seconds ?
> The list struck me as old-fashioned
Exactly right. Exactly the wrong thing to do. Excluding Google and Facebook is no bad thing; they are dinosaurs in training. But where are the smart, dynamic and iconoclastic thinkers? Seems like Trump wants yes-people not fellow iconoclasts.
...Much of what America is currently famous for (high quality, fast innovation in the high-tech market, leading to virtually all large internet-based companies being US based) is now being sidelined in favour of what the rest of the world can do just as well and cheaper (low-tech manufacturing).
I get that these internet firms aren't the boost for the US economy that their size would imply, but sidelining them will simply encourage them to move elsewhere. Isn't bringing them in to the fold more productive?
I'm trying to sit back and enjoy the ride, but I just struggle to see how that will pay off for anybody (Trump, the rust belt, the trailer dwellers...).
Western countries are developing a two tiered caste system of the elite and their necessary support and the dirt poor with the dirt poor being much more numerous. No country can survive that situation for long. History has shown repeatedly that when that situation develops there is a great potential for an authoritarian regime if your lucky or dictatorship if you are not to take power.
While IT jobs tend to have very good pay they are not that numerous and typically require very specific skills. Ditto for shysters and bean counters, jobs are not that numerous and they require very specific skills and training. What are the "burly men" going to do if there a no jobs for them and no one seems to care about their plight as they slide into poverty? They need jobs that match their skills and abilities also.
it may well do, but many of the companies it acquires soon cut jobs/cost, it's also no stranger to offshoring jobs
what'd be more interesting is blackstone's overall net effect on jobs at it's acquisitions, i suspect it's negative
I'm not sure what this means: Wikipedia says (I know, I know) that Blackstone has about 2'000 employees.
Now it may be that companies bought/controlled by Blackstone have in total hundreds of thousands of employees. I'd hesitate to say that Blackstone created those jobs, though.
what he's looking for is people who have broad knowledge of things tech, not folks who got lucky and built billion-dollar empires doing one single thing well in the early days of the Internets. Like Internet search, or social sites. (Or running hotels.)
It does bring an evil pleasure to know these "upstart" Internet billionaire folks will have to prove their worth to the new Administration before they'll be listened to (if at all), and they won't be able to ride-in on their own coat-tails just because they're "hip" and "Internet cool".
Disney? Not a company founded by a guy who got lucky with a single mouse? Boeing? A company which was never innovative (like Northrop, North American or Lockheed were) and basically uses the same airplane design over and over - and was caught bribing the Pentagon? Wal-mart? Doesn't it do exactly a single thing - sell cheap stuff?
By the way, most successful companies got lucky and built billion dollars business doing well a single thing. Ford, Coca-Cola, Bell, etc. etc.... it's serial failures like Trump that need to attempt different business (extracting as much personal money from each as they could from gullible investors), until one gives sticks enough to give an apparent image of success...
Jobs are the smokescreen. It's just a sound bite for the little people, the ones who don't matter. Now that they've voted, anyway.
Trump is tapping "his peeps" -- the representatives of the old-school, corporate 1% -- to govern.
Those who paid attention to words versus facts during Trump's campaign should have learned that what he says, or tweets, has very little relationship to his actions.
At least that's how I read Trump. The statements, "We're gonna build a beautiful wall, Mexico will pay for it" and "If elected, I will release my tax returns" were both calculated gambits, not statements of serious intention.
Packing his administration with corporate CEOs and lobbyists is action. "We're gonna create so many jobs" is the gambit. Watch it unfold. My bet is that corporations will win yuuuuge, and workers will lose. Again.
nepotism? no, that would be OBAKA and the Demo-Rats. They're INfamous for it.
It's like when people think Trump is an authoritarian. That's not even CLOSE. Authoritarians are also (typically) micromanagers. Their egos require them to bit-fiddle EVERYTHING. Like OBAKA. And Carter, oh by the way.
No, Trump is a _DELEGATOR_ like Reagan. And equally misunderstood in that regard...
Palpy is absolutely correct.
Andrew's article states "there's no place for internet oligarchs like Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, Jeff Bezos or the world's fifth-richest man, Mark Zuckerberg."
It then lists a bunch of other oligarchs who did make the cut.
Donald is doing what the US's leaders have always done, and I believe George II summed it up best:
Ya gotta dance with those what brung ya.
Back in the "olden days" companies would give campaign contributions to both parties, and just kinda stand clear otherwise in order to not make enemies with whomever was elected. Taking sides is a risky business that puts the business at risk. I suspect the various Boards of Directors will put a muzzle on high ranking execs from here on out.
Give the Donald some credit here.
He loaded the Forum with people that run businesses that actually use technology and those that advise on how to use.
Too often in the past decade we've had academic egg heads and providers to us what we need.
This is a much more pragmatic group.
But I don't know enough about US business to say what that is.*
*Although I'm betting it'll be another bailout for the Detroit car makers. Ironic as in Europe Ford's rep for car reliability has been rising. Not bad cars as long as they aren't actually designed for the US market, or possibly designed by USians.
I mean, they run a web-page that people use to post about what they eat and pictures of their cats n dogs.
Most anything people do on that page is waste their own time and that of their employers.
And I work at an ISP that doesn't really produce anything either, apart from heat (and a bit of CO2, in case the Diesels run). We run mail servers so that people can send out virtual stuff about their often virtual goods in their virtual business, we run web-servers where shops run that sometimes even sell physical goods that the company manufactured themselves. And then there's the countless other servers that run countless other stuff from various companies, few of what they do directly relates to the physical world and as such, is pretty much useless, in the grand scheme of things.
I sometimes envy bakers, butchers or carpenters.
A healthy economy usually requires a little of everything, with emphasis on what you do well. Right now the US economy is virtually stripped of real product manufacturing capability with the exception of automobiles. There are a lot of sectors that need attention but manufacturing tends to be the magnet for attention.
We need to continue with our high tech fields and revoke some of the snooping laws so that sector doesn't get hammered by back lash. It is in pretty good shape for the near term so can be left alone for now.
We need to rebuild manufacturing. This will need at least 2 things: Restructuring bureaucracy so that we don't slide backwards environmentally but the process is streamlined so it isn't a quagmire of sometimes competing laws, regulations, rules and whims. We have to figure out some way of renewing the work ethic of the general populace. Part of this will have to come from the C level offices realizing that if you want loyal, hardworking employees you have to pay and treat them decently.
Education: We have to look elsewhere for how to fix our system. It produces indoctrinated lumps that haven't been taught to think for themselves. We have an overemphasis on post secondary education also. You don't need a business degree to answer the phone - if you aren't going to pay bachelor degree wages don't require it. Especially for a work function that doesn't require it.
*I* think where we have gone wrong is not emphasizing the love of learning (not necessarily education in a formal setting) and instead touting it as a means to an end rather than something that can enrich your life outside of your job. I'm not saying that formal education is not desirable or necessary because it certainly is in some instances. I am saying that you shouldn't push students to take a bunch of classes that don't relate to their needs. Let them look at those optional courses after getting into the workforce. Make those art, philosophy, music etc classes available on an ad hoc basis for the curious. If someone really wants to major in those, by all means do so. Just don't expect a job designing airplane parts when you are done. We have condoned a very close-minded view of the working classes and managed to convince whole generations of young people that working with your hands isn't desirable or necessary. Worse yet, we have created (or at least continued) a class stratification that makes it so knowledge workers don't want to be seen with "blue collar" workers. There is a pervasive idea that uneducated equals dumb. You see it on here in the comments regularly. Some of the dumbest SOBs I know managed to grade curve their way through college and some of the smartest people I know knew enough not to blow money on formal education because they knew they wanted to be craftsmen. They also tend to educate themselves by select reading.
TL;DR Mike Rowe says it better - just look up his foundation.
Get all your potential critics and enemies with influence in a single room, under the delusion that that is where they may freely sound off. This limits their impact to a forum of one's own construction. It also re-directs (=maintains the silence of) the silent majority who might find other ways to undermine your authority because they think they have a voice.
A beneficial side effect is that you know who to shoot and have them all lined up waiting for it.
"no representation for organised labour" - Their turn next.
Facebook, Google, Twitter and other social media enterprises are irresponsible when it comes to what allow. I understand Censorship is undesirable but society is irresponsible so until the society matures and takes social responsibility seriously, censorship is the only option.
People should be allowed to sue these companies for spreading falsehoods.
Pizzaria was used as a base for Child Pornography by Hillary Clinton and one deranged human decides to go in there and shoot.
Pizzaria was used as a base for Child Pornography by Hillary Clinton and one deranged human decides to go in there and shoot.
Turns out it was a Trump "insider" (son of one, I believe) who started that story..err.... rumor. Reports are varying but someone got fired for story.
I do find it disgusting that the media picks up shit like this without ever checking to see it's a rumor or a well-placed lie. I guess "investigative" isn't a word use with "reporter" anymore.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019