SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Silicon Valley Warms to Trump After a Chilly Start
Two days after Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election, executives at Google consoled their employees in an all-staff meeting broadcast around the world.
"There is a lot of fear within Google," said Sundar Pichai, the company's chief executive, according to a video of the meeting viewed by The New York Times. When asked by an employee if there was any silver lining to Mr. Trump's election, the Google co-founder Sergey Brin said, "Boy, that's a really tough one right now." Ruth Porat, the finance chief, said Mr. Trump's victory felt "like a ton of bricks dropped on my chest." Then she instructed members of the audience to hug the person next to them.
Sixteen months later, Google's parent company, Alphabet, has most likely saved billions of dollars in taxes on its overseas cash under a new tax law signed by Mr. Trump. Alphabet also stands to benefit from the Trump administration's looser regulations for self-driving cars and delivery drones, as well as from proposed changes to the trade pact with Mexico and Canada that would limit Google's liability for user content on its sites.
Once one of Mr. Trump's most vocal opponents, Silicon Valley's technology industry has increasingly found common ground with the White House. When Mr. Trump was elected, tech executives were largely up in arms over a leader who espoused policies on immigration and other issues that were antithetical to their companies' values. Now, many of the industry's executives are growing more comfortable with the president and how his economic agenda furthers their business interests, even as many of their employees continue to disagree with Mr. Trump on social issues.
💔 💰💰💰 💕👌
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Saturday March 31 2018, @12:47AM (5 children)
> Is this why they supported Clinton?
Everybody supports either the winner, or both sides when the winner is not clear. That's pragmatic.
Silicon Valley is more likely to support the dems, especially against a Trump, but pay attention and you'll notice how many hedged their bet just in case.
> The current administration has no option. If you look at what Trump is doing, he is getting the economy moving.
> A government doesn't announce investment in infrastructure during boom times, they do that during recession.
Feel free to google the US economic growth. The US economy grew pretty well under Obama, so the tax cut is pro-cyclical, making it dangerous, especially since there is clearly a tech bubble. You are supposed to pay your debts during the good times (so you can get back in debt at the next recession).
Unemployment was nearing record lows before Trump stepped into the white house. Now, a lot of those jobs are less good jobs than before W's Great Recession, unquestionably, with partial employment up, and stagnating wages this century. But the US economy was doing fine, and the deficit hawks should have been delighted that it was time to reduce the debt. Instead, we get another W-style cut at the worst time.
> So Trump knows what he's doing, he realises that bringing wealth creation back to the US will have a cost and has covered himself.
Wait, did you understand my sentence you quoted?
> This has been nothing but a wealth transfer
Wealth transfer to China and to the richest Americans, true, at the expense of the middle and lower class.
The new tax cut adds to the wealth transfer to the upper class, while the tariffs will hit the lower and middle class, just as inflation is starting to kick up (still under the 2% target, but under pressure).
Bringing high-profile manufacturing back to the US is good, but automation means not too many jobs come back (less than were lost, otherwise the factories wouldn't come back). The US should be investing massively in education, because millions of low-paying jobs are threatened with near-term extinction regardless of what happens in DC. Instead, the pentagon gets a giant raise (which does drive a few immediate good jobs, but lots of upper-class pocket stuffing).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31 2018, @01:06AM (3 children)
Exactly and who would buy product if it had continued?
How is this any kind of economic assessment and would the specific tariffs matter if it was? How could the US defend itself against military aggression if China controlled the metal supply?
Automation has no impact on GDP, [mit.edu] immigration did [nationalacademies.org] but no longer will for reasons we already addressed.
In hard science, not social science like "gender studies". The cancer needs treating, starve it of public funds!
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:23AM (2 children)
China controls the rare earth element supply.
There are just two rare earth mines on the entire planet: one in China and one in the US. The US one is able to operate only when rare earth prices are high enough.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @07:31PM (1 child)
According to this [globalsecurity.org], there were somewhere around 9 active mines in China, plus whatever illegal mining goes on over there.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 31 2018, @08:09PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Saturday March 31 2018, @02:21AM
My friend Morris has a Molecular Biology PhD and has worked two postdoc positions but can't get so much as another postdoc because there are just too damn many PhDs.
Instead he now teaches high school chemistry.
The recent emphasis on STEM education caused a serious problem: there is a shortage of qualified applicants for skilled trade jobs.
Despite that I attended Caltech and UCSC for college, in eighth grade I took wood and metal shop. My high school had a really excellent auto shop - students could bring their cars to school to get fixed while they were in class.
We need more shop classes and fewer STEM classes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]