Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States Apple

Why America Doesn't Need More Tech Giants Like Apple 631

Hugh Pickens writes "Optimists says that if only America produced more companies like Apple and Amazon and Google and Facebook, the country's economic problems would be fixed — America could retrain its vast, idle construction-and-manufacturing workforce, and our unemployment and inequality problems would be solved. But Apple's $1 billion new data center in North Carolina has been a disappointing development for many residents, who can't comprehend how expensive facilities stretching across hundreds of acres can create only 50 new jobs, especially after thousands of positions in the region have been lost to cheaper foreign competition. In fact, Apple actually exemplifies some of the reasons why the U.S. has such huge unemployment and inequality problems: 'Digital' businesses like Apple employ far fewer people than traditional manufacturing businesses, Apple's 60,000+ jobs are not just in the U.S. — they're spread around the world. Companies like Apple 'create amazing products and vast shareholder wealth, but they don't spread this wealth around as much as earlier industrial giants did,' writes Henry Blodget. 'So, yes, we should celebrate the success of Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking they're going to solve our unemployment or inequality problems.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why America Doesn't Need More Tech Giants Like Apple

Comments Filter:
  • by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @09:30AM (#38213130) Homepage

    Most small businesses are support business for large business. It is absolutely the case in the US that their is mobility between businesses, small businesses grow and large business often shrink. However this can take quite a bit of time and really doesn't change the fact that big business is the ultimate engine.

  • by Gr33nJ3ll0 ( 1367543 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @09:34AM (#38213172)
    Even the "Traditional Manufacturing Businesses" aren't employing as many people as before. It all comes down to automation. If you do something routine, simple, and repetitive, you can and will be replaced by a machine.
  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @09:57AM (#38213392) Homepage Journal

    Most companies won't hire him because he's too old

    Such companies that hire an inexperienced young person but don't hire an equally inexperienced older person may find themselves in violation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 [dol.gov] or foreign counterparts.

  • by dwillden ( 521345 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @10:43AM (#38213920) Homepage
    Yes but unless the HR folks are dumb enough to outright state it's because of his age, it's very difficult to prove age discrimination, all they have to do is point to his resume and say "The reason we didn't choose that particular candidate is that he doesn't have the requisite skills for the position." Case Dismissed.
  • Re:Americans (Score:5, Interesting)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:12AM (#38214332)

    "unless you're willing to bring manufacturing to the US"

    Continental and Bridgestone and other FOREIGN manufacturers bringing manufacturing to the US to the tune of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars invested. BMW make cars in the US and sell them in MAINLAND CHINA. Caterpillar has massive export sales.

    "manufacturing will likely stay in parts of the world where it can be done the cheapest"

    Tiny (compared to the US and China) GERMANY is the WORLDS SECOND LARGEST EXPORTER.

    Hello, that's with high wages, UNIONS, socialized medical care, and Autobahns as contrasted with US practice. They also have more sexual freedom, real beer, and much less superstition/religion.

  • Re:Need (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tthomas48 ( 180798 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @11:48AM (#38214824)

    It's because the stock market is so pathetic. Economic incentive is to get bought out rather than tempt fate on a stock market that people have lost faith is in any way valuing things correctly. If the stock market were to somehow regain the public trust I bet we'd see far more IPOs and far less buyouts.

  • Green Jobs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DaMattster ( 977781 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @12:29PM (#38215312)
    The same can be said for the so-called "Green economy." The green economy is also going to be highly automated. Obama is doing disservice by preaching job creation through green jobs. In fact, I'd wager much of the manufacturing behind green products will eventually go overseas to save money. My guess is we will never really see low unemployment again. The US population is too large for the economy and resources to really handle. As more and more industries automate, the baseline unemployment figures will continue to rise.
  • Re:Need (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anthony Mouse ( 1927662 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @02:29PM (#38216926)

    It's not the stock market. It's the legal system. Especially the patent system. If you're the little guy and you start to challenge the big guy, you get a nastygram to the effect of "this is a list of our patents that you're infringing. You can take a license for ONE BILLION DOLLARS, or you could just sell is your company and retire." Naturally the little guy doesn't have to sell his company to the bigger company. There is another option: He can sell his company to a different bigger company, which has sufficient defensive patents to tell the first bigger company to go to hell. Which is why the little guy can get good money -- the big guys will bid against each other for which one buys him out. There just isn't any option left of "remain an independent company."

  • Re:Nike shoes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by poetmatt ( 793785 ) on Wednesday November 30, 2011 @05:38PM (#38219288) Journal

    hi, troll!

    you're talking about infrastructure costs, not the costs to go into business.

    In a large majority of the united states, the cost to register a business is somewhere in the range of $200-400 maximum.

    The cost to go into business could be astronomical or it could be near zero due to a wholly digital business. Any example you make here is simply full of shit because it doesn't reflect on the range being anything from near zero to billions of dollars.

    Your examples for based on a restaurant, which is one of the most notoriously bad businesses to open with a really really high rate of failure. Long story short on opening a restaurant: if you aren't a professionally trained chef, don't try to open a restaurant. Fees, are something that should be calculated for. If you can't handle the fees, then the problem is the *business you're trying to open*, not the fees. In the US, a lot of these fees are for safety regulations. China doesn't have those problems because they don't have those regulations, simple. I'm not going to get into "better" or "worse" or the bureaucracy of it.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...