Intel CEO: The Democrats Are Destroying our Economy

[bugscoe]

Intel CEO Otellini: The Democrats Are Destroying our Economy
By Brian Faughnan
Tuesday, August 24th at 6:31PM EDT

This is a stunning indictment from the leader of one of America’s most successful technology companies:

Unless government policies are altered, he predicted, “the next big thing will not be invented here. Jobs will not be created here.”

The U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business, Otellini said, that there is likely to be “an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we’re seeing today in Europe–this is the bitter truth.”

Not long ago, Otellini said, “our research centers were without peer. No country was more attractive for start-up capital… We seemed a generation ahead of the rest of the world in information technology. That simply is no longer the case…”

Otellini singled out the political state of affairs in Democrat-dominated Washington, saying: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working…”

As a result, he said, “every business in America has a list of more variables than I’ve ever seen in my career.” If variables like capital gains taxes and the R&D tax credit are resolved correctly, jobs will stay here, but if politicians make decisions “the wrong way, people will not invest in the United States. They’ll invest elsewhere.”

Take factories. “I can tell you definitively that it costs $1 billion more per factory for me to build, equip, and operate a semiconductor manufacturing facility in the United States,” Otellini said…

“If our tax rate approached that of the rest of the world, corporations would have an incentive to invest here,” Otellini said. But instead, it’s the second highest in the industrialized world, making the United States a less attractive place to invest–and create jobs–than places in Europe and Asia that are “clamoring” for Intel’s business.

The most disturbing part of Otellini’s comments is that he says nothing groundbreaking, nothing unexpected, and nothing that we have not heard many times before. Otellini talks about regulation, taxation, litigation and transparency - all issues that have been cited by business leaders for years. But our ‘leaders’ in Washington ignore these concerns, and instead pile on more taxes, more regulation, more litigation costs, greater uncertainty about the climate going forward. And they do all this while claiming to be ‘pro-jobs.’

Will Congress and the White House ever realize that business leaders are telling the truth? As our government continues to make it more difficult to do business in the US, companies must increasingly look to more favorable climates abroad. If Washington really wants to spur job creation here in the US, they should repeal the health care overhaul, reduce spending, cut the corporate tax rate, give up on cap and trade, and reform litigation. Instead we have been treated to an extended experiment in government control - one that is obviously not producing new wealth, new jobs, or any real hope for the emergence of the industries of the future.

 

[Ricter]

On the other hand, this wonderful company, and others like it, turned Santa Clara County, with its former orchards and drinkable well water, into a toxic waste dump, and put it on the EPA superfund cleanup list.

 

[hermit]

In 2006, he oversaw the largest round of layoffs in Intel history when 10,500 (or 10% of the corporate workforce) employees were laid-off. Job cuts in manufacturing, product design, and other redundancies, were made in an effort to save $3 billion/year in cost by 2008. Of the 10,500 jobs, 1,000 layoffs were at the management level.


http://www.itworld.com/Man/3919/060906intellayoffs/

 

[bullmarket79]

This was as amusing as when we get business people running for govt, who tell us they know how to create jobs,,yet fail to mention those jobs they created were in foreign nations lol

 

[Gabfly1]

Not to worry. I'm sure bugscoe will come up with a new "stunning indictment " in no time. It's just a matter of cranking up his high-speed "stunning indictment" machine. No doubt, that last widget was from a bad batch.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from bullmarket79:

This was as amusing as when we get business people running for govt, who tell us they know how to create jobs,,yet fail to mention those jobs they created were in foreign nations lol

If we EVER get politicos who support and embrace what America needs for its SURVIVAL... that is a capitalistic, free market approach and legislation to support our governance and economy... the entire Leftist crowd will be SUCKING WIND. They will have to come to the reality that they alone are responsible for their well-being... what a shock THAT will be.

 

[Arnie]

Quote from hermit:

In 2006, he oversaw the largest round of layoffs in Intel history when 10,500 (or 10% of the corporate workforce) employees were laid-off. Job cuts in manufacturing, product design, and other redundancies, were made in an effort to save $3 billion/year in cost by 2008. Of the 10,500 jobs, 1,000 layoffs were at the management level.


http://www.itworld.com/Man/3919/060906intellayoffs/

Sounds like a well run company to me. Most of the layoffs were due to selling business units they didn't need.

Analysts cheered Otellini's move, saying Intel had become bloated. Otellini can use the new cuts to achieve four goals, said Ted Schadler, vice president for consumer electronics research at Forrester Research Inc.

He can eliminate redundant jobs, simplify operations by having fewer products, get out of businesses that don't match Intel's core strengths, and get out of businesses that aren't so profitable, Schadler said.

When Otellini succeeded former CEO Craig Barrett in May 2005, he found there was a huge competitor lurking on his left flank -- AMD -- and he saw a company that was no longer a lean machine, but had grown to fill every nook and cranny, Schadler said.

"So he eliminated middle management, getting rid of 1,000 executives. And now he's using that as a pry-bar into the organization to say 'Who do we really need?'" said Schadler.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Arnie:

Sounds like a well run company to me. Most of the layoffs were due to selling business units they didn't need.

Analysts cheered Otellini's move, saying Intel had become bloated. Otellini can use the new cuts to achieve four goals, said Ted Schadler, vice president for consumer electronics research at Forrester Research Inc.

He can eliminate redundant jobs, simplify operations by having fewer products, get out of businesses that don't match Intel's core strengths, and get out of businesses that aren't so profitable, Schadler said.

When Otellini succeeded former CEO Craig Barrett in May 2005, he found there was a huge competitor lurking on his left flank -- AMD -- and he saw a company that was no longer a lean machine, but had grown to fill every nook and cranny, Schadler said.

"So he eliminated middle management, getting rid of 1,000 executives. And now he's using that as a pry-bar into the organization to say 'Who do we really need?'" said Schadler.

And how many of these jobs were outsourced?

 

[Trader666]

LOL! You say that as if it's a bad thing. Only a libtard like you would apply a socialist welfare state template to a corporation like Intel. Intel's objectives are things like productivity, efficiency and profit... not maintaining bloat, inefficiency and unnecessary jobs.

Quote from hermit:

In 2006, he oversaw the largest round of layoffs in Intel history when 10,500 (or 10% of the corporate workforce) employees were laid-off. Job cuts in manufacturing, product design, and other redundancies, were made in an effort to save $3 billion/year in cost by 2008. Of the 10,500 jobs, 1,000 layoffs were at the management level.


http://www.itworld.com/Man/3919/060906intellayoffs/

 

[bugscoe]

Quote from Trader666:

LOL! You say that as if it's a bad thing. Only a libtard like you would apply a socialist welfare state template to a corporation like Intel. Intel's objectives are things like productivity, efficiency and profit... not maintaining bloat, inefficiency and unnecessary jobs.

+1