Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In the Age of Trump, Tech CEOs Cast Themselves As the New Statesmen (buzzfeed.com)

Posted by msmash on from the not-everyone-is-a-fan dept.

An anonymous reader shares an insightful story on Buzzfeed News: Mark Zuckerberg isn't running for president of the United States, but you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. On Tuesday morning, the Facebook CEO kicked off the company's annual developers conference in San Francisco with a glancing shot at Donald Trump, followed by a reiteration of the company's oft-repeated pledge to bring the world together. Zuck's not alone. Last month Apple CEO Tim Cook led his keynote with a similar stump-speech vibe. He dove right into the company's national security and privacy fight against the FBI. Two weeks ago Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told attendees of the company's annual Build developers conference of plans to "move our society forward," asking "profound questions" of his developers:"Is technology empowering people or is it displacing us? Is technology helping us preserve our enduring values such as privacy, or is it compromising it?" Google CEO Sundar Pichai hasn't delivered his big keynote yet (it's coming up May 18), but late last year he issued an open letter in support of Muslims after Donald Trump suggested he'd blanket-ban the religious group from entering the United States. Welcome to 2016: where tech's biggest leaders are no longer selling themselves as innovators, creative geniuses, or domineering tycoons, but as world leaders -- statesmen shaping the course of human history.According to a report from last month, several tech executives -- including Tim Cook, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Sean Parker -- met recently to discuss how to "stop Donald Trump." Musk, however, later refuted such reports.

7 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing New by ranton · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Companies banding together to exert control on governments is nothing new. This only seems new because it at least appears they aren't doing it for financial reasons, but instead are doing it for a real public good. This appears to be a good shift to me, but the cynical side of me still smells a rat.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Nothing New by shawn2772 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Zuckerberg heads up a PAC which is trying to open up more immigration and H1Bs - because, y'know, he *cares* about the people and it has nothing at all to do with getting cheaper tech labor into the states.

      Zuckerberg's desire for H1Bs has nothing to do with the cost of tech labor. Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc., are constantly struggling to find tech labor, not because they aren't willing to shell out the big bucks for qualified talent, but because they struggle to find qualified talent at any price. That labor pool is completely depleted; there are more positions available than there are people to work them. They're already paying $250K+ (including salary, bonus and stock) for people not much past the new grad stage, and making it $300K, or $400K, or $1M, won't get them many more new hires once the other companies in the area bump their pay scales to match. (Actually, paying *too* much can increase attrition as employees gain sufficient financial independence that they decide to strike out on their own, or simply stop working, so increasing the pay scales could well make their hiring problems even worse.).

      The reason the likes of Facebook want H1Bs is because the market for US labor is tapped out, and they want to be able to draw on the rest of the world. It's not about keeping wages down, it's about finding an additional 200 hireable people per week, on top of the 200 they're hiring every week right now. The supply of available American talent isn't keeping up with the demand, and paying more money doesn't appreciably increase the supply.

    2. Re:Nothing New by shawn2772 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And adding H1B won't help FB/Google et. al.

      Sure it will. Or reallocating visas from WiPro/Tata/et al. Either one will work.

      Or even pushing the H1B minimum wage to FB's 250k (as you say it's their basic wage) the FB/Google et. al will have all the H1B's they want 'cause WiPro/Tata/Infosys/IBM's H1B model will be utterly destroyed and those companies will just pack up and go home.

      No need to destroy them to fix the H1B problems, IMO. Heck, I don't think you even need to bump the minimum pay scales up. Just loosen the regulations so that H1B visa holders can easily change employers with very low overhead rather than being locked in. Given the cost and effort involved in sponsoring an H1B, plus language and culture issues, etc., that will give American citizens all the competitive edge they need, while still allowing companies to suck the smart people from the rest of the world (which is good for the US in the long run).

      Of course, to the extent that WiPro et al have built a business on being able to exploit H1B lock-in, they'll take a hit, maybe a very large one. It needn't destroy them, though, because there *is* a place for organizations who know how to hire and manage technical people, because most companies don't know how to do it. They should be able to offer a cost-effective service even without slave labor. Though it'll clearly cost more than it does.

  2. In the age of Trump "Liberals" love CEOs by mi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the Age of Trump, Tech CEOs Cast Themselves As the New Statesmen

    ... and the supposed champions of the people are now happy with the corporate influence.

    Because some CEOs are more equal than others... Oh, wait, Koch brothers hate Trump too, so let's suspend this campaign.

    The noble aim of #NeverTrump justifies all means, does not it? Principles are for wussies anyway...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. Italy already tried this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Italy tried the successful CEO route. They elected TV mogul Silvio Berlosconi to prime minister 4 times!

    Suffice it to say, it didn't turn out so well. Italy has massive unemployment and massive debt.

    Running a country is completely different from running a company. You can't just fire people when you don't agree with them, or make sweeping changes because you think it's the right course of action. Countries aren't just big corporations. The sooner people get this through their head, the better.

  4. Meh, who gives a rats ass by Virtucon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  5. Trump is a one show pony by OpinOnion · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is not an era of celebrity political power. It's one election where the GOP yet against failed to put up any viable candidates and spent the last 8 years programming their supporters with propaganda about how bad the country is and how horrible Obama and basically all liberal are. They have spent billions of dollars over the last 30+ years to push this narrative every year and propaganda does work. This is nothing more than a leadership and talent vacuum in the GOP that allowed someone like Trump to opportunistically jump in at a very weak point for the GOP. The GOP entirely did this to themselves, but that is beside the fact. Trump's honeymoon won't last more than one election cycle because he is going to lose to Cruz and then if he runs third party he will lose to Hilary because the GOP votes will be split and there is zero chance of a victory that way, even against Sanders neither Cruz nor Trump running side by side would beat Hilary or Sanders. It's really all up to Trump if he wants to give Cruz a shot at winning by stepping out or if more likely based on his persona Trump will want to keep his supporters, particularly because the GOP is working against him to support Cruz and plans on winning in a rather unfair way. That will only give fuel to Trump potential third party run and he may as well go ahead and brand a political party while he is at it.. even if only for one election cycle. It will make more money for him if he brands it. I don't think the Trump Party is a smart move though. Cruz and the GOP can only pray that Trump backs out after he loses the delegate count. After this cycle Trump will lose half or more of those GOP voters, though not soon enough for the GOP and Cruz to not get destroyed in the Presidency and maybe in congressional races, especially if we have two conservative candidates in the General fighting each other. Trump isn't the kind of guy to backdown, but in this case he has no good options. He can't beat Hilary and the GOP, not even close. He doesn't even have half the GOP voters.