Corp.'s chief executive Paul Otellini has been tapped by U.S. President Barack Obama
to be a member of the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
General Electric chief executive Jeffrey Immelt chairs the panel.
Its goal is to put Americans back to work, post recession and to promote
skilled and professional jobs.
The White House says that it will name more board members in coming weeks.
President Obama, following the severe recession of 2008 and 2009, first
created the board in 2009.
President Obama is currently wrapping up a West Coast trip, in which he dined
with the likes of Steve Jobs (Apple), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook),
and Eric Schmidt (Google). Today he is touring Intel's
Hillsboro, Oregon facility, accompanied by Mr. Otellini.
Mr. Otellini is only Intel's fifth chief executive. He has been with the
company for over three decades, having joined in 1974. He slowly climbed
the ranks, gaining notice as the general manager who supervised the design of
the first Pentium processors in 1993. From there he became executive
vice president and general manager of the Intel Architecture Group, supervising
chipset and processor development.
In 2002 he was elected to the company's board of directors and became president
and chief operating officer. In 2005, he replaced Craig Barret as chief
During his reign as chief executive he sold Apple on the idea of using Intel
processors and oversaw the launch of the highly successful Core series of
processors. Despite these successes, he's had to make cuts, committing to
series of layoffs in the company's history during the downturn.
Now he's going to be looking to put Americans back to work.
quote: But the main point is that it is expensive to employ people in the US because of our gov't mandated standards.
quote: Everything here seems fine until there is mass unemployment here at home or we hear about the horrors of cruel child exploitation somewhere or workers at Foxconn commiting suicide.
quote: Mr. and Mrs. Suburbia feel great about minimum wage when they don't see the ugliness that it is supposed to cover up being exposed somewhere else.
quote: why do you think they need higher salaries?
quote: Maybe because the cost of goods is artificially inflated due to minimum wage and other regulatory restrictions. Not maybe. Definitely.
quote: I'd start with CEOs. Show me a CEO who's job and responsibilites are 10X more important than the US president. 100X. 1000X. Now even better tell me why sport figures get that kind of money.
quote: Because they are worth it to the people who are paying their salaries.
quote: But to your point of higher wages for professionals... why do you think they need higher salaries?
quote: why do you think they need higher salaries? Maybe because the cost of goods is artificially inflated due to minimum wage and other regulatory restrictions. Not maybe. Definitely.
quote: The $7.50/hour US worker is replaced by a 75 cents/hour worker, yeah that's a savings, but the $75/hour engineer is also outsourced for the $75/day engineer.
quote: Show me a CEO who's job and responsibilities are 10X more important than the US president. 100X. 1000X.
quote: Also - CEOs fail and they still get millions. They break laws and destroy economies and they get rewarded. Yeah things are working perfectly for CEOs, aren't they?
quote: If you look at economics 101 capitalism works when both parties feel they've gotten a fair deal. It doesn't work when 1 party tries to screw the other guy. Obviously this happens frequently.
quote: Well actually that's mostly true of only Americans, who seem to think that paying taxes allows them to be oblivious to government and political events, and that they will be left alone according.
quote: Now why would you say that? Didn't this family get all upset about Nike and child labor? Yeah I know, for all of 15 minutes. Mostly they are not upset though is because our press chooses not to publish such stories. You need to ask them why. I'm no mind reader. You learned about Foxconn here, no mainstream media, right?
quote: Well as usual in this economy equation you leave out crime. When people can't make ends meet they do bad things, these could be factored into the cost of goods. The alternative is to raise taxes on everyone to cover such costs. Economists argue many goods are not fairly priced, because prices don't include the cost to society after the item is disposed of. I'm not taking a stand on that, but is it a valid point?