Nike, Adidas shoe supplier Pou Chen to slash 6,000 jobs in Vietnam -sources
Mon, February 20, 2023
HANOI (Reuters) -Taiwan's Pou Chen Corp, the world's largest maker of branded sports footwear, plans to cut around 6,000 jobs at its Ho Chi Minh City plant in Vietnam due to weak demand, two local officials familiar with the company's plans said on Tuesday.
The firm's Pouyuen Vietnam factory will cut 3,000 jobs this month and not extend labour contracts for another 3,000 workers later this year, the officials said, declining to be identified because they were not authorised to speak to media.
The Pouyen Vietnam factory supplies global companies such as Nike Inc. and Adidas AG and is one the biggest employers in Ho Chi Minh City, with 50,500 workers.
Pou Chen said the Vietnam factory planned to cut no more than 3,000 staff in the latest round of layoffs amid uncertainty over the macroeconomic outlook, and the impact on operations would be limited.
"The company will prudently respond to the dynamic changes in the business environment," Pou Chen said in a filing to the Taiwan bourse.
Pou Chen shares fell 1.2% in early afternoon trade in Taiwan in a broader market that was down just 0.1%.
Telephone calls to a factory labour union official were not answered.
The plan to cut jobs marks a reversal for the company that in 2021 faced a labour shortage and manufacturing disruption in Vietnam due to the coronavirus pandemic.
The Southeast Asian country is a global hub for manufacturing, and its economy in 2022 grew at the fastest pace in decades, but economists have warned of headwinds, with weakening global demand starting to impact trade shipments.
Vietnam's exports in January fell 26% from a year earlier, while imports were down 24%. A decline in imports may indicate a future contraction in industrial production as firms cut purchases of materials and equipment for production.
(Reporting by Khanh Vu and Donny Kwok in Hong Kong Editing by Ed Davies and Sonali Paul)
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
Gas stoves are a health hazard — and induction stoves just work better
Brady Seals
Mon, February 20, 2023
The debate over gas stoves is raging these days, and there’s a lot of conflicting information and polarized opinions. It can be hard to sort through.
Yet in matters of public health and climate science alike, long-term, evidence-based scientific research is the gold standard to help sort fact from fiction. In the case of gas stoves, the risks to both health and the climate are increasingly clear. New peer-reviewed research from RMI, the University of Sydney and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, which I co-authored with two epidemiologists and a colleague, estimated that nearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States can be linked to having a gas stove in the home. This finding is an important addition to the growing body of scientific evidence and medical studies showing that children living in a house with a gas stove are at increased risk of having asthma. (Canary Media is an independent affiliate of RMI.)
For policymakers and consumers alike, understanding both the health and climate effects associated with gas stoves is an essential step to guide everything from public policy about building codes to decisions about what stove to buy in the next kitchen renovation.
Here we will share six simple truths to clarify the conversation about gas stoves, your health and our planet’s climate.
Gas stoves pose risks to human health
Scientific studies documenting the health risks associated with gas stove use date back decades. Gas stoves emit numerous pollutants, several of which (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide) are known to damage our lungs and exacerbate respiratory issues.
It is also well established that the health effects of pollution disproportionately hit vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, as well as low-income households and communities of color. Affirming a 1992 summary study on childhood respiratory illnesses, a 2013 peer-reviewed summary report in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that children living in a home with a gas stove have a 42 percent increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms.
Emerging research also shows that the gas delivered to stoves contains air toxins and chemicals such as benzene, a known carcinogen with no safe exposure level.
Venting is not an adequate solution
While increased airflow is preferable to cooking without ventilation, it’s only a partial solution to the adverse health effects of gas stove pollution. This is due to several factors, starting with the reality that many kitchens simply lack ventilation. And for those that do have it:
Many exhaust hoods are recirculating, meaning they shift pollutants around the home, rather than moving them outdoors.
Ventilation hoods on the market today aren’t always strong enough to reduce pollution to healthy levels.
Surveys show most people don’t use ventilation even if they have it.
Gas stoves contribute to climate change
Burning fossil fuels (mainly gas) in U.S. homes and businesses accounts for roughly one-tenth of the country’s carbon emissions. Cutting this climate pollution is essential for the United States to meet its climate targets and to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. Gas cooking produces over 25 million tons of carbon pollution each year in the United States, according to RMI analysis of Energy Information Administration data. Furthermore, recent research from Stanford University found that gas stoves leak methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and other pollutants, even when the stoves are off.
There are no health-based safety standards for gas stoves
Due to the known pollution risks, building codes dictate that many common household gas appliances — such as furnaces and water heaters — must be vented outdoors. Yet there is no similar universal requirement for gas stoves — they are not currently required to meet any voluntary or mandatory safety or performance standards. And while gas stoves routinely produce levels of nitrogen dioxide that would be deemed illegal outdoors, the United States currently does not have any indoor air-pollution standards or guidelines.
Gas stoves also pose the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, especially if they are installed incorrectly and are not properly vented or maintained. In January 2023, nearly 30,000 gas stoves were recalled because they could emit dangerous levels of carbon monoxide while in use. Other products that could pose a similar risk to consumers, like generators, come with warning labels and increasingly have mandatory safety shut-offs.
Electric induction stoves are more efficient
Where a gas stove uses three units of energy to boil a quart of water, an induction stove needs just one. That energy savings translates into cost savings for American families. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if every stove sold in 2021 had been induction, the energy savings alone would have exceeded $125 million. The potential for households to save money on their energy bills is essential now that the cheap natural gas prices of the 2010s have given way to sharp increases in customer bills.
Electric induction cooktops compete with gas-range performance
In addition to being cleaner, healthier and highly energy-efficient, today’s induction cooktops perform leaps and bounds better than old-fashioned electric coil stoves. Induction stoves can boil water in seconds and cook food precisely, and their surfaces remain cool to the touch — a bonus for anyone with children. Many renowned chefs have switched from gas to induction because of the latter's speed, control and precision, as well as the ability to avoid cooking with gas, which can create hot and uncomfortable conditions in the kitchen.
Climate solutions are health solutions
Climate solutions are health solutions — a key link between the two is air quality. Focusing on the air we breathe in our homes is critical because that is where we spend most of our time. By addressing gas stove pollution, we can improve indoor air quality and benefit health, while helping the climate.
Brady Seals
Mon, February 20, 2023
The debate over gas stoves is raging these days, and there’s a lot of conflicting information and polarized opinions. It can be hard to sort through.
Yet in matters of public health and climate science alike, long-term, evidence-based scientific research is the gold standard to help sort fact from fiction. In the case of gas stoves, the risks to both health and the climate are increasingly clear. New peer-reviewed research from RMI, the University of Sydney and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, which I co-authored with two epidemiologists and a colleague, estimated that nearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States can be linked to having a gas stove in the home. This finding is an important addition to the growing body of scientific evidence and medical studies showing that children living in a house with a gas stove are at increased risk of having asthma. (Canary Media is an independent affiliate of RMI.)
For policymakers and consumers alike, understanding both the health and climate effects associated with gas stoves is an essential step to guide everything from public policy about building codes to decisions about what stove to buy in the next kitchen renovation.
Here we will share six simple truths to clarify the conversation about gas stoves, your health and our planet’s climate.
Gas stoves pose risks to human health
Scientific studies documenting the health risks associated with gas stove use date back decades. Gas stoves emit numerous pollutants, several of which (such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide) are known to damage our lungs and exacerbate respiratory issues.
It is also well established that the health effects of pollution disproportionately hit vulnerable populations, including children and the elderly, as well as low-income households and communities of color. Affirming a 1992 summary study on childhood respiratory illnesses, a 2013 peer-reviewed summary report in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that children living in a home with a gas stove have a 42 percent increased risk of experiencing asthma symptoms.
Emerging research also shows that the gas delivered to stoves contains air toxins and chemicals such as benzene, a known carcinogen with no safe exposure level.
Venting is not an adequate solution
While increased airflow is preferable to cooking without ventilation, it’s only a partial solution to the adverse health effects of gas stove pollution. This is due to several factors, starting with the reality that many kitchens simply lack ventilation. And for those that do have it:
Many exhaust hoods are recirculating, meaning they shift pollutants around the home, rather than moving them outdoors.
Ventilation hoods on the market today aren’t always strong enough to reduce pollution to healthy levels.
Surveys show most people don’t use ventilation even if they have it.
Gas stoves contribute to climate change
Burning fossil fuels (mainly gas) in U.S. homes and businesses accounts for roughly one-tenth of the country’s carbon emissions. Cutting this climate pollution is essential for the United States to meet its climate targets and to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. Gas cooking produces over 25 million tons of carbon pollution each year in the United States, according to RMI analysis of Energy Information Administration data. Furthermore, recent research from Stanford University found that gas stoves leak methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and other pollutants, even when the stoves are off.
There are no health-based safety standards for gas stoves
Due to the known pollution risks, building codes dictate that many common household gas appliances — such as furnaces and water heaters — must be vented outdoors. Yet there is no similar universal requirement for gas stoves — they are not currently required to meet any voluntary or mandatory safety or performance standards. And while gas stoves routinely produce levels of nitrogen dioxide that would be deemed illegal outdoors, the United States currently does not have any indoor air-pollution standards or guidelines.
Gas stoves also pose the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, especially if they are installed incorrectly and are not properly vented or maintained. In January 2023, nearly 30,000 gas stoves were recalled because they could emit dangerous levels of carbon monoxide while in use. Other products that could pose a similar risk to consumers, like generators, come with warning labels and increasingly have mandatory safety shut-offs.
Electric induction stoves are more efficient
Where a gas stove uses three units of energy to boil a quart of water, an induction stove needs just one. That energy savings translates into cost savings for American families. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if every stove sold in 2021 had been induction, the energy savings alone would have exceeded $125 million. The potential for households to save money on their energy bills is essential now that the cheap natural gas prices of the 2010s have given way to sharp increases in customer bills.
Electric induction cooktops compete with gas-range performance
In addition to being cleaner, healthier and highly energy-efficient, today’s induction cooktops perform leaps and bounds better than old-fashioned electric coil stoves. Induction stoves can boil water in seconds and cook food precisely, and their surfaces remain cool to the touch — a bonus for anyone with children. Many renowned chefs have switched from gas to induction because of the latter's speed, control and precision, as well as the ability to avoid cooking with gas, which can create hot and uncomfortable conditions in the kitchen.
Climate solutions are health solutions
Climate solutions are health solutions — a key link between the two is air quality. Focusing on the air we breathe in our homes is critical because that is where we spend most of our time. By addressing gas stove pollution, we can improve indoor air quality and benefit health, while helping the climate.
Bernie Sanders jabs Joe Biden for not replying when asked to fulfill his promise to halt federal contracts for anti-union employers
Nicole Gaudiano
Tue, February 21, 2023
Bernie Sanders and Joe BidenShannon Stapleton/Reuters
Sanders liked Biden's campaign promise to halt federal contracts for anti-union employers.
Sanders criticizes Biden for not responding to his request that he follow through on the promise.
"As I write these words some months later, he has not replied," Sanders writes in his new book.
Sen. Bernie Sanders liked President Joe Biden's campaign promise to halt federal contracts for anti-union employers. Now he wants Biden to follow through.
In his new book, the Vermont independent criticizes Biden for not responding to his April 2022 letter urging him to sign an executive order to ban companies like Amazon from receiving taxpayer-funded contracts after he says they "violated labor laws."
"As I write these words some months later, he has not replied," Sanders writes in "It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism."
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Biden has pledged to be "the most pro-union president you've ever seen" and says his infrastructure and manufacturing policies are designed to create union jobs. He tweeted a video message supporting Amazon workers hoping to unionize in Alabama.
Sanders, in his April 26, 2020, letter to Biden, wrote that he was "delighted" to hear Biden's pro-union intentions. He reminded Biden of his campaign promise to "institute a multi-year federal debarment" for employers illegally opposing unions and ensuring federal contracts only go to employers who agree to not run anti-union campaigns.
"That campaign promise was exactly right. Today, I am asking you to fulfill that promise," wrote Sanders, who also held a hearing on the subject when serving as Budget Committee chairman last year. He called Amazon the "poster child as to why this anti-union busting Executive Order is needed now more than ever."
In his book, Sanders doubles down against Amazon and its executive chairman Jeff Bezos, calling him "the embodiment of the extreme corporate greed that shapes our times. While he becomes richer, his employees struggle to get by."
Nicole Gaudiano
Tue, February 21, 2023
Bernie Sanders and Joe BidenShannon Stapleton/Reuters
Sanders liked Biden's campaign promise to halt federal contracts for anti-union employers.
Sanders criticizes Biden for not responding to his request that he follow through on the promise.
"As I write these words some months later, he has not replied," Sanders writes in his new book.
Sen. Bernie Sanders liked President Joe Biden's campaign promise to halt federal contracts for anti-union employers. Now he wants Biden to follow through.
In his new book, the Vermont independent criticizes Biden for not responding to his April 2022 letter urging him to sign an executive order to ban companies like Amazon from receiving taxpayer-funded contracts after he says they "violated labor laws."
"As I write these words some months later, he has not replied," Sanders writes in "It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism."
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Biden has pledged to be "the most pro-union president you've ever seen" and says his infrastructure and manufacturing policies are designed to create union jobs. He tweeted a video message supporting Amazon workers hoping to unionize in Alabama.
Sanders, in his April 26, 2020, letter to Biden, wrote that he was "delighted" to hear Biden's pro-union intentions. He reminded Biden of his campaign promise to "institute a multi-year federal debarment" for employers illegally opposing unions and ensuring federal contracts only go to employers who agree to not run anti-union campaigns.
"That campaign promise was exactly right. Today, I am asking you to fulfill that promise," wrote Sanders, who also held a hearing on the subject when serving as Budget Committee chairman last year. He called Amazon the "poster child as to why this anti-union busting Executive Order is needed now more than ever."
In his book, Sanders doubles down against Amazon and its executive chairman Jeff Bezos, calling him "the embodiment of the extreme corporate greed that shapes our times. While he becomes richer, his employees struggle to get by."
Bernie Sanders says he agrees with Bill Gates that the government should 'tax the robots' replacing workers
Nicole Gaudiano
Tue, February 21, 2023
Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and Microsoft's Bill Gates
Nicole Gaudiano
Tue, February 21, 2023
Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and Microsoft's Bill Gates
.Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images, left, and Getty Images
Bernie Sanders says government should "tax the robots" that replace workers.
In his new book, Sanders references Microsoft's Bill Gates' ideas on this issue.
"We're going to need to adapt tax and regulatory policies" to address robots, Sanders write.
You've heard Sen. Bernie Sanders say — and probably shout — that he wants to tax billionaires. He also wants to tax robots.
In his new book, the Vermont independent writes that he supports establishing a robot tax to account for the impact of automation on workers.
"If workers are going to be replaced by robots, as will be the case in many industries, we're going to need to adapt tax and regulatory policies to assure that the change does not simply become an excuse for race-to-the-bottom profiteering by multinational corporations," he wrote in "It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism," to be released on February 21.
The general idea behind a robot tax, levied on firms that replace humans with robots, is to disincentivize the practice and to cover the loss of revenue from payroll taxes when robots are used, according to a report by Robert Seamans for Brookings.
Seamans argues that these taxes "may be well-intentioned" but are "a misguided idea that would have negative consequences for firms, their workers and ultimately the economy." That's because the idea that robots are taking jobs is "not well founded" and it would lead to less economic growth, he wrote.
But Sanders isn't alone in this thinking that robots should be taxed. His book references policy ideas from other proponents, including Microsoft's Bill Gates, a billionaire who Sanders notes is "not someone I regularly agree with."
Gates has said that the tax could help finance jobs requiring "human empathy and understanding," such as elder care, having smaller class sizes or helping children with special needs.
Sanders also points to other ideas from other sources, as well, that would require companies to pay a portion of payroll taxes into a retraining fund for displaced workers or that would prevent automation from reducing tax revenue.
Bernie Sanders says government should "tax the robots" that replace workers.
In his new book, Sanders references Microsoft's Bill Gates' ideas on this issue.
"We're going to need to adapt tax and regulatory policies" to address robots, Sanders write.
You've heard Sen. Bernie Sanders say — and probably shout — that he wants to tax billionaires. He also wants to tax robots.
In his new book, the Vermont independent writes that he supports establishing a robot tax to account for the impact of automation on workers.
"If workers are going to be replaced by robots, as will be the case in many industries, we're going to need to adapt tax and regulatory policies to assure that the change does not simply become an excuse for race-to-the-bottom profiteering by multinational corporations," he wrote in "It's OK To Be Angry About Capitalism," to be released on February 21.
The general idea behind a robot tax, levied on firms that replace humans with robots, is to disincentivize the practice and to cover the loss of revenue from payroll taxes when robots are used, according to a report by Robert Seamans for Brookings.
Seamans argues that these taxes "may be well-intentioned" but are "a misguided idea that would have negative consequences for firms, their workers and ultimately the economy." That's because the idea that robots are taking jobs is "not well founded" and it would lead to less economic growth, he wrote.
But Sanders isn't alone in this thinking that robots should be taxed. His book references policy ideas from other proponents, including Microsoft's Bill Gates, a billionaire who Sanders notes is "not someone I regularly agree with."
Gates has said that the tax could help finance jobs requiring "human empathy and understanding," such as elder care, having smaller class sizes or helping children with special needs.
Sanders also points to other ideas from other sources, as well, that would require companies to pay a portion of payroll taxes into a retraining fund for displaced workers or that would prevent automation from reducing tax revenue.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is embracing his anger. A new book details what he's angry about
Updated February 21, 2023
Heard on Morning Edition
STEVE INSKEEP
JOJO MACALUSO
Download
Transcript
Sen. Bernie Sanders walks into NPR Headquarters in Washington D.C.Elizabeth Gillis/NPR
Senator Bernie Sanders is embracing his anger.
He's shown a lot of it during three decades in Congress. In 1992, he attacked both parties for defense spending, claiming they were "hoping and praying that maybe we'll have another war."
During his first presidential run, he spoke sarcastically of people who fear his identification as a socialist. "I don't want to get people nervous falling off their chairs, but Social Security is a socialist program," Sanders told NPR in 2015.
POLITICS
Bernie Sanders On Being Jewish And A Democratic Socialist
It's no surprise that the Vermont senator spoke harshly of President Donald Trump, vowing: "You're damn right we're going to hold him accountable" at the time.
But he also bristled when social justice activists insisted that Democrats use the phrase "Black Lives Matter."
"It's too easy for 'liberals,' to be saying, well, let's use this phrase. What are we going to do about 51 percent of young African Americans unemployed?" Sanders said.
Enlarge this image
Sen. Sanders' latest book, 'It's Ok to Be Angry About Capitalism.'Elizabeth Gillis/NPR
The Senator is preoccupied with America's economic divides; and his new book about his recent campaigns and legislation is titled It's Okay to be Angry About Capitalism.
"They say the older you get, the more conservative you become," he writes. "That's not me. The older I get, the angrier I become about the uber-capitalist system."
Sponsor Message
IT'S ALL POLITICS
Sanders: 'My Goal Right Now Is To Win This Election'
He says his anger grows in part out of his youth in a struggling family in Brooklyn in the 1940s and 1950s. He dedicates the book, in part, to his older brother Larry, who introduced him to authors ranging from psychoanalysis founder Sigmund Freud to political theorist Karl Marx, who, along with Friedrich Engels, established the far-left ideology known as Marxism.
"We didn't have a lot of books in the house, and my brother brought books into the house and talked with me about politics, talked to me about history, talked to me about psychology," Sanders told NPR.
"And kind of intellectually opened up my eyes to the world that we're living in."
Today Larry Sanders is a Green Party politician in the United Kingdom.
And Bernie Sanders, after two presidential campaigns, now chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. For all his anger and demands for systemic change, the senator told NPR he is working within a divided Congress to make more modest changes that he thinks are possible.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
On his anger at some Democrats in Congress
I was bitterly disappointed [at the failure of giant social legislation known as] Build Back Better... What many of us said is... Let's deal with the structural crises facing America. Our child care system is a disaster. Our healthcare system is dysfunctional. Kids can't afford to go to college. Let's deal with the existential threat of climate change. Let's deal with income and wealth inequality. We came within two votes of bringing forth legislation which would have been transformative for the working families.
Sponsor Message
SI: Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who would be described as more moderate or more conservative, and represent more conservative states–
Corporate Democrats would be the term.
SI: Corporate Democrats?
These are folks who've got a whole lot of money from wealthy people and large corporations and they do their bidding.
SI: I was going to ask if you're still angry at someone like Joe Manchin. It sounds like you are. From his perspective, he's representing a very conservative state that votes for Republicans for president hugely and needs to bring them something that they can believe in. Do you sympathize with his political situation?
In 2016 when I was running for president, I won a landslide victory in West Virginia.
SI: In the Democratic primary.
In the Democratic primary.
SI: But there's a general election.
I understand... In my view, politicians do well when they stand up and fight for working people.
On the power of the working-class vote
SI: You write about the working class: "You can't win elections without the overwhelming support of the working class." It seems that many Republicans now agree with you and openly court the working class and get a lot of working class votes. Why do you think that is?
Well, that is an enormously important political issue. That is the most important political question of our time. [It's] not that working class people agree with Republican views... But what I think has happened over the years, and this is no great secret as a result of a lot of corporate contributions, the Democratic Party has kind of turned its back on the needs of working class people. And then you have a gap there where you have people like Trump coming along and say, "You know what the problem is? It's immigrants, it's gays, it's transgender people." And you get people angry around those issues rather than Democrats saying, I'll tell you what the problem is. The problem is the wealthy are getting richer. Corporations have enormous power. We're going to take them on to create a nation that works for you.
Sponsor Message
On what Sanders thinks he can accomplish in a divided Congress
What I want to see, a Medicare-for-all system, ain't going to happen. No Republicans support it. Half the Democrats won't support it. But this is what we can do: We can expand primary health care and community health centers to every region of the country...We now have 30 million people accessing community health centers [and can do more]... You walk into a community health center, you get affordable health care, dental care... mental health counseling and low cost prescription drugs. Republicans understand that in red states it is very hard often for people to access a doctor.
On his pragmatism
SI: Even though you say it's okay to be angry about capitalism, there's a place for capitalism in the world as you envision it.
Yes, there is. Yes, there is.
SI: If you made all the rules, there would still be large corporations.
Well, I don't know about that. But look, there's nothing in that book to suggest that it is bad for people to go out and start a business, to come up with innovation. That's great. That's good. What is bad is when a handful of corporations control sector after sector.
The audio version of this interview was produced by Milton Guevara and Nina Kravinsky, and edited by Olivia Hampton.
Updated February 21, 2023
Heard on Morning Edition
STEVE INSKEEP
JOJO MACALUSO
Download
Transcript
Sen. Bernie Sanders walks into NPR Headquarters in Washington D.C.Elizabeth Gillis/NPR
Senator Bernie Sanders is embracing his anger.
He's shown a lot of it during three decades in Congress. In 1992, he attacked both parties for defense spending, claiming they were "hoping and praying that maybe we'll have another war."
During his first presidential run, he spoke sarcastically of people who fear his identification as a socialist. "I don't want to get people nervous falling off their chairs, but Social Security is a socialist program," Sanders told NPR in 2015.
POLITICS
Bernie Sanders On Being Jewish And A Democratic Socialist
It's no surprise that the Vermont senator spoke harshly of President Donald Trump, vowing: "You're damn right we're going to hold him accountable" at the time.
But he also bristled when social justice activists insisted that Democrats use the phrase "Black Lives Matter."
"It's too easy for 'liberals,' to be saying, well, let's use this phrase. What are we going to do about 51 percent of young African Americans unemployed?" Sanders said.
Enlarge this image
Sen. Sanders' latest book, 'It's Ok to Be Angry About Capitalism.'Elizabeth Gillis/NPR
The Senator is preoccupied with America's economic divides; and his new book about his recent campaigns and legislation is titled It's Okay to be Angry About Capitalism.
"They say the older you get, the more conservative you become," he writes. "That's not me. The older I get, the angrier I become about the uber-capitalist system."
Sponsor Message
IT'S ALL POLITICS
Sanders: 'My Goal Right Now Is To Win This Election'
He says his anger grows in part out of his youth in a struggling family in Brooklyn in the 1940s and 1950s. He dedicates the book, in part, to his older brother Larry, who introduced him to authors ranging from psychoanalysis founder Sigmund Freud to political theorist Karl Marx, who, along with Friedrich Engels, established the far-left ideology known as Marxism.
"We didn't have a lot of books in the house, and my brother brought books into the house and talked with me about politics, talked to me about history, talked to me about psychology," Sanders told NPR.
"And kind of intellectually opened up my eyes to the world that we're living in."
Today Larry Sanders is a Green Party politician in the United Kingdom.
And Bernie Sanders, after two presidential campaigns, now chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. For all his anger and demands for systemic change, the senator told NPR he is working within a divided Congress to make more modest changes that he thinks are possible.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
On his anger at some Democrats in Congress
I was bitterly disappointed [at the failure of giant social legislation known as] Build Back Better... What many of us said is... Let's deal with the structural crises facing America. Our child care system is a disaster. Our healthcare system is dysfunctional. Kids can't afford to go to college. Let's deal with the existential threat of climate change. Let's deal with income and wealth inequality. We came within two votes of bringing forth legislation which would have been transformative for the working families.
Sponsor Message
SI: Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who would be described as more moderate or more conservative, and represent more conservative states–
Corporate Democrats would be the term.
SI: Corporate Democrats?
These are folks who've got a whole lot of money from wealthy people and large corporations and they do their bidding.
SI: I was going to ask if you're still angry at someone like Joe Manchin. It sounds like you are. From his perspective, he's representing a very conservative state that votes for Republicans for president hugely and needs to bring them something that they can believe in. Do you sympathize with his political situation?
In 2016 when I was running for president, I won a landslide victory in West Virginia.
SI: In the Democratic primary.
In the Democratic primary.
SI: But there's a general election.
I understand... In my view, politicians do well when they stand up and fight for working people.
On the power of the working-class vote
SI: You write about the working class: "You can't win elections without the overwhelming support of the working class." It seems that many Republicans now agree with you and openly court the working class and get a lot of working class votes. Why do you think that is?
Well, that is an enormously important political issue. That is the most important political question of our time. [It's] not that working class people agree with Republican views... But what I think has happened over the years, and this is no great secret as a result of a lot of corporate contributions, the Democratic Party has kind of turned its back on the needs of working class people. And then you have a gap there where you have people like Trump coming along and say, "You know what the problem is? It's immigrants, it's gays, it's transgender people." And you get people angry around those issues rather than Democrats saying, I'll tell you what the problem is. The problem is the wealthy are getting richer. Corporations have enormous power. We're going to take them on to create a nation that works for you.
Sponsor Message
On what Sanders thinks he can accomplish in a divided Congress
What I want to see, a Medicare-for-all system, ain't going to happen. No Republicans support it. Half the Democrats won't support it. But this is what we can do: We can expand primary health care and community health centers to every region of the country...We now have 30 million people accessing community health centers [and can do more]... You walk into a community health center, you get affordable health care, dental care... mental health counseling and low cost prescription drugs. Republicans understand that in red states it is very hard often for people to access a doctor.
On his pragmatism
SI: Even though you say it's okay to be angry about capitalism, there's a place for capitalism in the world as you envision it.
Yes, there is. Yes, there is.
SI: If you made all the rules, there would still be large corporations.
Well, I don't know about that. But look, there's nothing in that book to suggest that it is bad for people to go out and start a business, to come up with innovation. That's great. That's good. What is bad is when a handful of corporations control sector after sector.
The audio version of this interview was produced by Milton Guevara and Nina Kravinsky, and edited by Olivia Hampton.
Senators Sanders and Warren Introduce Social Security Expansion Act
The bill, proposed this week, aims to make Social Security solvent for 75 years and to increase benefits, especially for lower-income workers and retirees.
Reported by PAUL MULHOLLAND
The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced earlier this week by Senators Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, aims to make Social Security solvent through the end of the 21st century, while also enhancing benefits.
The bill would create a tax of 12.4% on investment income for individuals making $200,000 or more and married couples making $250,000 or more, matching the combined employee and employer payroll rates.
The bill would also make all income greater than $250,000 subject to the full Social Security payroll tax rate; currently, income greater than $160,200 is not subject to the full payroll tax rate. Under the bill, income between $160,200 and $250,000 would not be taxed differently at first, but the $160,200 threshold would be allowed to rise normally until it reaches $250,000, projected to happen in 2035. At that point, all income would be subject to the full payroll rate. Additionally, any income greater than $250,000 would not be counted for benefit calculation purposes.
Since the bill would raise taxes, it must be formally introduced first in the House of Representatives. Sponsored in the House by Representatives Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on Tuesday. The bill has 26 co-sponsors in the House, as of today, all of whom are Democrats. Republicans control the House, and the Committee on Ways and Means is chaired by Representative Jason Smith, R-Missouri.
A statement from Sanders’ office said the bill would make Social Security solvent for at least the next 75 years, based on a study conducted by Stephen Goss, the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration.
Goss’ report explained that the bill would change the cost-of-living index used to calculate Social Security benefit increases from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) to the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E). The report estimated that the cost-of-living adjustment would increase by “0.2 percentage points per year on average” as a result.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI-E is a statistic which weighs inflation to account for the spending patterns of those aged 62 and older, such as their higher proportional spending on health care. The Bureau warned that this statistic has certain limitations, such as a smaller sample population, and currently has no official usage.
According to a factsheet for the bill, it would also increase the Special Minimum Benefit to 125% of the poverty line, “or over $18,000 for a single worker who had worked their full career.”
The bill would also increase the first income-percentage “bend point” from 90% to 95%. This means that, going forward, 95% of the first $1,115 in monthly wages (for 2023, indexed to inflation) would count toward Social Security benefits, up from 90%. This has the effect of frontloading benefit increases such that low-income workers benefit proportionally more from them.
Sanders’ office estimates that the annual Social Security benefit would increase on average by $2,400 a year.
The Senators propose the bill shortly after President Joe Biden was called a “liar” by Republicans during this State of the Union address for saying they were threatening to cut Social Security and Medicare to reduce the national debt. The risk of future retirees seeing reduced Social Security payments due to lack of funding has been a policy topic for years, with the Congressional Budget Office warning last December that the trust fund payments may be depleted by 2033, resulting in a 23% cut in planned benefit payments in 2034.
The bill, proposed this week, aims to make Social Security solvent for 75 years and to increase benefits, especially for lower-income workers and retirees.
Reported by PAUL MULHOLLAND
The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced earlier this week by Senators Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, aims to make Social Security solvent through the end of the 21st century, while also enhancing benefits.
The bill would create a tax of 12.4% on investment income for individuals making $200,000 or more and married couples making $250,000 or more, matching the combined employee and employer payroll rates.
The bill would also make all income greater than $250,000 subject to the full Social Security payroll tax rate; currently, income greater than $160,200 is not subject to the full payroll tax rate. Under the bill, income between $160,200 and $250,000 would not be taxed differently at first, but the $160,200 threshold would be allowed to rise normally until it reaches $250,000, projected to happen in 2035. At that point, all income would be subject to the full payroll rate. Additionally, any income greater than $250,000 would not be counted for benefit calculation purposes.
Since the bill would raise taxes, it must be formally introduced first in the House of Representatives. Sponsored in the House by Representatives Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, the bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means on Tuesday. The bill has 26 co-sponsors in the House, as of today, all of whom are Democrats. Republicans control the House, and the Committee on Ways and Means is chaired by Representative Jason Smith, R-Missouri.
A statement from Sanders’ office said the bill would make Social Security solvent for at least the next 75 years, based on a study conducted by Stephen Goss, the chief actuary at the Social Security Administration.
Goss’ report explained that the bill would change the cost-of-living index used to calculate Social Security benefit increases from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) to the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E). The report estimated that the cost-of-living adjustment would increase by “0.2 percentage points per year on average” as a result.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPI-E is a statistic which weighs inflation to account for the spending patterns of those aged 62 and older, such as their higher proportional spending on health care. The Bureau warned that this statistic has certain limitations, such as a smaller sample population, and currently has no official usage.
According to a factsheet for the bill, it would also increase the Special Minimum Benefit to 125% of the poverty line, “or over $18,000 for a single worker who had worked their full career.”
The bill would also increase the first income-percentage “bend point” from 90% to 95%. This means that, going forward, 95% of the first $1,115 in monthly wages (for 2023, indexed to inflation) would count toward Social Security benefits, up from 90%. This has the effect of frontloading benefit increases such that low-income workers benefit proportionally more from them.
Sanders’ office estimates that the annual Social Security benefit would increase on average by $2,400 a year.
The Senators propose the bill shortly after President Joe Biden was called a “liar” by Republicans during this State of the Union address for saying they were threatening to cut Social Security and Medicare to reduce the national debt. The risk of future retirees seeing reduced Social Security payments due to lack of funding has been a policy topic for years, with the Congressional Budget Office warning last December that the trust fund payments may be depleted by 2033, resulting in a 23% cut in planned benefit payments in 2034.
Biden declines to veto Apple Watch ban, company says
Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Tue, February 21, 2023 at 9:31 AM MST·2 min read
President Biden has upheld an International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that could result in an import ban on the Apple Watch, according to AliveCor, a medical device company that has accused Apple of patent infringement.
The California startup said it was informed of Biden’s decision by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Tuesday. It’s the first ITC ruling against Apple to clear presidential review.
The Hill has reached out to the White House and Apple for comment.
Biden’s decision to uphold a potential ban on imports of the tech product sets the stage for a high-stakes legal battle.
The ITC ruled in December that Apple infringed on AliveCor’s wearable electrocardiogram patents. While the commission called for a ban on Apple Watch imports, the order is on hold amid a dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which recently ruled that AliveCor’s patents were invalid.
“This decision goes beyond AliveCor and sends a clear message to innovators that the U.S. will protect patents to build and scale new technologies that benefit consumers,” AliveCor CEO Priya Abani said in a statement.
AliveCor hopes to bring all of the legal issues before an appeals court.
Presidents don’t typically veto ITC decisions. But in 2013, then-President Obama vetoed a potential ban on iPhone and iPad imports after the ITC ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung’s patents.
Following the most recent ITC ruling, Apple hired the former chairwoman of the ITC to lobby on its behalf, in an apparent effort to secure a presidential veto. The tech giant, along with its allies in Congress, warned that a ban would undermine public health.
“The patents on which AliveCor’s case rest have been found invalid, and for that reason, we should ultimately prevail in this matter,” Apple said in a December statement.
The dispute dates back to 2018, when Apple launched Apple Watch models with built-in electrocardiogram sensors, forcing AliveCor to cancel sales of its heart monitoring accessory. AliveCor said that it first shared its technology with Apple in 2015 in an effort to secure a partnership.
The Hill.
Karl Evers-Hillstrom
Tue, February 21, 2023 at 9:31 AM MST·2 min read
President Biden has upheld an International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling that could result in an import ban on the Apple Watch, according to AliveCor, a medical device company that has accused Apple of patent infringement.
The California startup said it was informed of Biden’s decision by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on Tuesday. It’s the first ITC ruling against Apple to clear presidential review.
The Hill has reached out to the White House and Apple for comment.
Biden’s decision to uphold a potential ban on imports of the tech product sets the stage for a high-stakes legal battle.
The ITC ruled in December that Apple infringed on AliveCor’s wearable electrocardiogram patents. While the commission called for a ban on Apple Watch imports, the order is on hold amid a dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which recently ruled that AliveCor’s patents were invalid.
“This decision goes beyond AliveCor and sends a clear message to innovators that the U.S. will protect patents to build and scale new technologies that benefit consumers,” AliveCor CEO Priya Abani said in a statement.
AliveCor hopes to bring all of the legal issues before an appeals court.
Presidents don’t typically veto ITC decisions. But in 2013, then-President Obama vetoed a potential ban on iPhone and iPad imports after the ITC ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung’s patents.
Following the most recent ITC ruling, Apple hired the former chairwoman of the ITC to lobby on its behalf, in an apparent effort to secure a presidential veto. The tech giant, along with its allies in Congress, warned that a ban would undermine public health.
“The patents on which AliveCor’s case rest have been found invalid, and for that reason, we should ultimately prevail in this matter,” Apple said in a December statement.
The dispute dates back to 2018, when Apple launched Apple Watch models with built-in electrocardiogram sensors, forcing AliveCor to cancel sales of its heart monitoring accessory. AliveCor said that it first shared its technology with Apple in 2015 in an effort to secure a partnership.
The Hill.
Qualcomm announces software business around its supply chain chips
Tue, February 21, 2023
By Stephen Nellis
(Reuters) - Qualcomm Inc on Tuesday said it is launching a paid cloud software service to help companies that use its chips keep tabs on goods as they move through the supply chain.
The San Diego, California company is the world's biggest provider of chips that help smartphones connect to mobile data networks. But Qualcomm has used its wireless communication specialty to enter other markets where devices need to talk to the internet, such as automobiles and factories.
Qualcomm Aware, as the new service is called, works with Qualcomm chips that go into tracking devices for shipping containers, pallets, packages and other parts of supply chains to help companies track where their goods and materials are.
Most of those trackers are made by third parties, but Qualcomm makes a few devices of its own, such as a tilt sensor that can be attached to utility poles to report whether they have toppled over during storms.
Qualcomm has already shipped hundreds of millions of the chips involved, which typically cost less than $10 each, Jeff Torrance, senior vice president and general manager of Qualcomm's smart connected systems business, told Reuters in an interview.
The software service announced Tuesday aims to let Qualcomm customers program their chips from one central spot, with updates sent to the chips over the air.
The service also aims to make better use of the data from the chips.
Torrance said Qualcomm's software will connect to other cloud-based such as Microsoft Corp's Dynamics 365 service, which corporations use to keep tabs on their inventory and supplies.
Companies could use the two systems to build things like virtual dashboards that show where all of a firm's inventory is at a given moment.
Qualcomm did not publicly announce pricing for the new service, but it represents a push to make more money off its chips by charging when the chip is sold then for cloud-based services using the chip afterward.
"We believe there's value in the chip and in the cloud service," Torrance told Reuters.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Tue, February 21, 2023
By Stephen Nellis
(Reuters) - Qualcomm Inc on Tuesday said it is launching a paid cloud software service to help companies that use its chips keep tabs on goods as they move through the supply chain.
The San Diego, California company is the world's biggest provider of chips that help smartphones connect to mobile data networks. But Qualcomm has used its wireless communication specialty to enter other markets where devices need to talk to the internet, such as automobiles and factories.
Qualcomm Aware, as the new service is called, works with Qualcomm chips that go into tracking devices for shipping containers, pallets, packages and other parts of supply chains to help companies track where their goods and materials are.
Most of those trackers are made by third parties, but Qualcomm makes a few devices of its own, such as a tilt sensor that can be attached to utility poles to report whether they have toppled over during storms.
Qualcomm has already shipped hundreds of millions of the chips involved, which typically cost less than $10 each, Jeff Torrance, senior vice president and general manager of Qualcomm's smart connected systems business, told Reuters in an interview.
The software service announced Tuesday aims to let Qualcomm customers program their chips from one central spot, with updates sent to the chips over the air.
The service also aims to make better use of the data from the chips.
Torrance said Qualcomm's software will connect to other cloud-based such as Microsoft Corp's Dynamics 365 service, which corporations use to keep tabs on their inventory and supplies.
Companies could use the two systems to build things like virtual dashboards that show where all of a firm's inventory is at a given moment.
Qualcomm did not publicly announce pricing for the new service, but it represents a push to make more money off its chips by charging when the chip is sold then for cloud-based services using the chip afterward.
"We believe there's value in the chip and in the cloud service," Torrance told Reuters.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Tech companies spoiled workers for decades. Now layoffs are bringing them down to Earth.
Asia Martin
Mon, February 20, 2023
Tech companies spoiled workers with perks for decades, adding to a feeling of tech exceptionalism. Now that tech companies are laying off workers, that shine is fading.
Asia Martin
Mon, February 20, 2023
Tech companies spoiled workers with perks for decades, adding to a feeling of tech exceptionalism. Now that tech companies are laying off workers, that shine is fading.
iStock; Robyn Phelps/Insider
The tech sector has already cut nearly 100,000 jobs this year.
The arms race to give the best perks
Understanding how Silicon Valley culture gave birth to a certain kind of overindulged tech worker starts with a history lesson.
Vijay Govindarajan, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, told Insider that as long ago as the 1980s, tech companies aimed for an open, more-informal office culture, the better to spark innovation. Part of that approach involved creating strong social bonds among employees. Open-office floor plans, communal kitchens, and freebies like food and coffee encouraged employees to gather up and share ideas. It effectively turned lunchtime and coffee breaks into working hours.
It became a recruiting tool, too. When companies wanted to lure and keep parents, they began offering maternity perks, on-site childcare, and lactation rooms. To recruit young professionals who were fresh out of college, companies tried to mirror college dormitories, Michael Malone, a tech historian and author who recalled seeing Pilates balls and video games at the former search-engine giant Yahoo, said.
"Your private life and your work life began to slide into each other. That was kind of cynical by these companies in the sense that 'We expect you to kind of live here,'" Malone said.
Office designs and perks eventually turned into an arms race as companies competed for not only the most talented people, but also for those who wouldn't mind logging a lot of hours. If one company is providing free food, then the other must up the ante, Govindarajan said.
Google became famous for its commuter buses, rock-climbing wall, on-site gym, and in-house massage therapists or massage chairs, depending on the campus. Microsoft paid for its employees' healthcare. Apple started holding Beer Bashes where the company treated employees to free beer, food, and concerts by popular artists such as Maroon 5. Meta installed on-site dental and healthcare, along with dry-cleaning services, and a bike-repair shop. And both Apple and Meta pay a portion of their employees' egg-freezing costs to win over prospective mothers.
Those perks came with a bump in salary expectations, too.
Young people were graduating with desires of becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg as they watched "The Social Network" in 2010, watched his company pull in $1.5 billion in venture capital in 2011, and then watched it achieve IPO in 2012.
Google raised the salary of entry-level positions by as much as $20,000, The New York Times reported, to keep its college-to-company pipeline going. Across the industry, companies went from offering restricted-stock units in less than half of all compensation packages to the units being a top employee perk.
Pandemic fueled the frenzy before the crash to Earth
Recent tech layoffs came after a robust hiring period that occurred during the pandemic-induced shift to digital working in 2020 and 2021. The industry and its eager investors were convinced that the stay-at-home orders had accelerated the country and the world into its digital future.
Tech professionals benefited because it boosted demand for their skills and boosted their compensation. The Great Resignation, where people quit in droves in favor of better-paying opportunities elsewhere, also bolstered the thought that there was job security in the sector.
Young tech workers took to TikTok to show off their offices, perks, and the lifestyles they afforded on high entry-level or junior salaries. The videos attracted hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views and further pushed the narrative that tech was the "it" industry.
Reality sets in for the tech industry
Then, reality set in as the economy started to sour.
"It went from negotiating salary like crazy and complaining that they had to work past 4 p.m. or whatever, to realizing that working in tech doesn't make them that exceptional and they're also at the mercy of potential layoffs," Ayas said of the rupture point.
Spending so many years in the comforting embrace of tech, and then the harsh wake-up call of reality, disoriented and upset many regardless of whether it affected them.
An ex-Googler who was handed a virtual pink slip told Insider she "mourned" the loss of her job and that the layoff felt "un-Googley." A laid-off recruiter from Meta said she felt "hurt." Those who are still on payroll have been left with feelings of survivor's guilt and anxiety around whether they are next.
It's unfortunate, Govindarajan said, but he added that these tech companies have disrupted other industries like photography, automobiles, and department stores.
"There are many industries the tech sector disrupted where people got laid off. But now it's the turn of the tech sector itself," he told Insider.
The tech sector has already cut nearly 100,000 jobs this year.
(POSITIONS OR FULL TIME EQUIVALENCY(FTE) NOT REAL JOBS OR EVEN WORKERS NECESSARILY)
Those who have identified with their big-name companies and high salaries are taking it hard.
Industry insiders have said workers are being brought down to Earth.
Layoffs at Big Tech companies have caused an identity crisis for many affected workers.
"If you've identified yourself with your salary, which a lot of people do, and if you identify yourself with working for a glamorous company like a Microsoft or Google or Meta, then your identity is taking a hit," Laurie Swanson, a career coach and a recruiter at InspiHER Tech, said.
The root of it all lies in the notion of tech exceptionalism: As companies like Google, Facebook, and Salesforce grew into the giants they are today, they seemed to defy gravity — making money hand-over-fist, even as they pampered their employees with perks that seemed too good to be true, such as massages, Ping-Pong tables, and free food.
Now, things are changing, and the world of posh perks and eye-popping salaries that zealous investors supported is reining itself in. Companies have let go of around 100,000 employees already this year, more than half of what they shed in 2022, according to Layoffs.fyi, a website that tracks layoffs in the technology sector. Companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon shed over 50,000 jobs in total, with all companies claiming that they over-hired during the height of the pandemic.
From a business-and-investors standpoint, this market correction is likely long overdue. But for tech workers who were sold on the glamorous lifestyle these companies have provided over the last few decades, this is a blow to their self-image. Tech looked like the solution to so many things that it produced a mindset among some employees that it was the exception to capitalism's rules.
"The feeling was that it is so exceptionally, incredibly, out-of-this-world good," Reyhan Ayas, a senior economist at the workforce-intelligence company Revelio Labs, said. "I feel like that's been brought down to earth."
Those who have identified with their big-name companies and high salaries are taking it hard.
Industry insiders have said workers are being brought down to Earth.
Layoffs at Big Tech companies have caused an identity crisis for many affected workers.
"If you've identified yourself with your salary, which a lot of people do, and if you identify yourself with working for a glamorous company like a Microsoft or Google or Meta, then your identity is taking a hit," Laurie Swanson, a career coach and a recruiter at InspiHER Tech, said.
The root of it all lies in the notion of tech exceptionalism: As companies like Google, Facebook, and Salesforce grew into the giants they are today, they seemed to defy gravity — making money hand-over-fist, even as they pampered their employees with perks that seemed too good to be true, such as massages, Ping-Pong tables, and free food.
Now, things are changing, and the world of posh perks and eye-popping salaries that zealous investors supported is reining itself in. Companies have let go of around 100,000 employees already this year, more than half of what they shed in 2022, according to Layoffs.fyi, a website that tracks layoffs in the technology sector. Companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon shed over 50,000 jobs in total, with all companies claiming that they over-hired during the height of the pandemic.
From a business-and-investors standpoint, this market correction is likely long overdue. But for tech workers who were sold on the glamorous lifestyle these companies have provided over the last few decades, this is a blow to their self-image. Tech looked like the solution to so many things that it produced a mindset among some employees that it was the exception to capitalism's rules.
"The feeling was that it is so exceptionally, incredibly, out-of-this-world good," Reyhan Ayas, a senior economist at the workforce-intelligence company Revelio Labs, said. "I feel like that's been brought down to earth."
The arms race to give the best perks
Understanding how Silicon Valley culture gave birth to a certain kind of overindulged tech worker starts with a history lesson.
Vijay Govindarajan, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, told Insider that as long ago as the 1980s, tech companies aimed for an open, more-informal office culture, the better to spark innovation. Part of that approach involved creating strong social bonds among employees. Open-office floor plans, communal kitchens, and freebies like food and coffee encouraged employees to gather up and share ideas. It effectively turned lunchtime and coffee breaks into working hours.
It became a recruiting tool, too. When companies wanted to lure and keep parents, they began offering maternity perks, on-site childcare, and lactation rooms. To recruit young professionals who were fresh out of college, companies tried to mirror college dormitories, Michael Malone, a tech historian and author who recalled seeing Pilates balls and video games at the former search-engine giant Yahoo, said.
"Your private life and your work life began to slide into each other. That was kind of cynical by these companies in the sense that 'We expect you to kind of live here,'" Malone said.
Office designs and perks eventually turned into an arms race as companies competed for not only the most talented people, but also for those who wouldn't mind logging a lot of hours. If one company is providing free food, then the other must up the ante, Govindarajan said.
Google became famous for its commuter buses, rock-climbing wall, on-site gym, and in-house massage therapists or massage chairs, depending on the campus. Microsoft paid for its employees' healthcare. Apple started holding Beer Bashes where the company treated employees to free beer, food, and concerts by popular artists such as Maroon 5. Meta installed on-site dental and healthcare, along with dry-cleaning services, and a bike-repair shop. And both Apple and Meta pay a portion of their employees' egg-freezing costs to win over prospective mothers.
Those perks came with a bump in salary expectations, too.
Young people were graduating with desires of becoming the next Mark Zuckerberg as they watched "The Social Network" in 2010, watched his company pull in $1.5 billion in venture capital in 2011, and then watched it achieve IPO in 2012.
Google raised the salary of entry-level positions by as much as $20,000, The New York Times reported, to keep its college-to-company pipeline going. Across the industry, companies went from offering restricted-stock units in less than half of all compensation packages to the units being a top employee perk.
Pandemic fueled the frenzy before the crash to Earth
Recent tech layoffs came after a robust hiring period that occurred during the pandemic-induced shift to digital working in 2020 and 2021. The industry and its eager investors were convinced that the stay-at-home orders had accelerated the country and the world into its digital future.
Tech professionals benefited because it boosted demand for their skills and boosted their compensation. The Great Resignation, where people quit in droves in favor of better-paying opportunities elsewhere, also bolstered the thought that there was job security in the sector.
Young tech workers took to TikTok to show off their offices, perks, and the lifestyles they afforded on high entry-level or junior salaries. The videos attracted hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of views and further pushed the narrative that tech was the "it" industry.
Reality sets in for the tech industry
Then, reality set in as the economy started to sour.
"It went from negotiating salary like crazy and complaining that they had to work past 4 p.m. or whatever, to realizing that working in tech doesn't make them that exceptional and they're also at the mercy of potential layoffs," Ayas said of the rupture point.
Spending so many years in the comforting embrace of tech, and then the harsh wake-up call of reality, disoriented and upset many regardless of whether it affected them.
An ex-Googler who was handed a virtual pink slip told Insider she "mourned" the loss of her job and that the layoff felt "un-Googley." A laid-off recruiter from Meta said she felt "hurt." Those who are still on payroll have been left with feelings of survivor's guilt and anxiety around whether they are next.
It's unfortunate, Govindarajan said, but he added that these tech companies have disrupted other industries like photography, automobiles, and department stores.
"There are many industries the tech sector disrupted where people got laid off. But now it's the turn of the tech sector itself," he told Insider.
Amazon staff might get paid 50% less than what they were expecting because shares in the online giant have fallen so much
Eleanor Pringle
Tue, February 21, 2023
When the going’s good at Amazon, employees certainly get their cut. But when shares slump—and Amazon’s have fallen by around 35% in the past year—staff incomes can take a hit.
According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, corporate staff at Amazon get a chunk of their wages from restricted stock units. Yet because Amazon’s share price was so underwhelming in 2022—down almost 50%—pay packets may sink anywhere between 15% and 50% below compensation targets, according to sources familiar with the matter.
This drop comes after CEO Andy Jassy issued a rallying cry to his remaining workforce following the January announcement of 18,000 layoffs. According to leaked audio heard by Insider, Jassy said turning the company around will take “many months” and moves will likely be “misunderstood” by the market.
In his speech Jassy also encouraged staff to think like “owners” of the business, a sentiment echoed by a spokesperson who responded to Fortune’s request for comment.
“Our compensation model is intended to encourage employees to think like owners, which is why it connects total compensation to the company’s long-term performance,” the Amazon spokesperson said in a statement to Fortune. “That model comes with some year-to-year upside and risk because the stock price can fluctuate, but historically at Amazon, it’s had a history of working out very well for people who’ve taken a long-term view.”
A report published last week also dubbed Jassy as one of the most “overpaid” CEOs in the U.S. after it was revealed he took home a total of $212.7 million, while the median Amazon worker receives $32,855. His “excess pay” component accounted for $197.3 million of the total, according to the report from shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow published Thursday.
Unlike its Big Tech peers Google and Apple, Amazon reportedly offers lower salaries but makes up a competitive offer through stock options. It also seems as if relative veterans at the organization could be hit worse by the share depreciation, with employees saying that the longer they stay at the company the more their compensation is dependent on stock awards. For those who have been with the online behemoth the longest, up to 50% of their total income is balanced on market outcomes.
Materials viewed by the Wall Street Journal also reveal Amazon’s HR team has been getting in touch with managers and issuing documentation on how to handle conversations around the effective pay cut.
People added that the compensation scheme is based on the assumption that share value will appreciate 15% every year. In the past that has rung true. In 2015 shares rose 117%, 11% in 2016, 56% in 2017, 28% in 2018, 23% in 2019 and 76% in 2020, according to research platform Macrotrends.
The past two years have not been as rosy for Amazon’s stock price. It fell 2.3% in 2021 and a whopping 49.5% last year.
Not all bad news
The good news for employees is that Amazon has rallied in 2023—up just over 13% at the time of writing. Experts are convinced it’s a trend set to continue: “I struggle to see a company like Amazon not bouncing back from a decline of this magnitude,” Craig Erlam, a senior market analyst for Oanda, told Fox Business.
He added: “Sentiment towards tech stocks takes a little longer to settle, but things should become much clearer over the next few months in respect to the economy and interest rates, at which point attitude towards tech could be very different.”
The so-called war for talent pushed Amazon to reexamine its cash offering in 2022, seeing it raise the component cap within salaries from $160,000 to $350,000. Some of those interviewed by the Wall Street Journal added that this year the company is considering further raises of between 1% and 4% as inflation pressures continue to mount.
However, they added, the shortcoming in share income won’t be offset in further restricted stocks being given to staff.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Eleanor Pringle
Tue, February 21, 2023
When the going’s good at Amazon, employees certainly get their cut. But when shares slump—and Amazon’s have fallen by around 35% in the past year—staff incomes can take a hit.
According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, corporate staff at Amazon get a chunk of their wages from restricted stock units. Yet because Amazon’s share price was so underwhelming in 2022—down almost 50%—pay packets may sink anywhere between 15% and 50% below compensation targets, according to sources familiar with the matter.
This drop comes after CEO Andy Jassy issued a rallying cry to his remaining workforce following the January announcement of 18,000 layoffs. According to leaked audio heard by Insider, Jassy said turning the company around will take “many months” and moves will likely be “misunderstood” by the market.
In his speech Jassy also encouraged staff to think like “owners” of the business, a sentiment echoed by a spokesperson who responded to Fortune’s request for comment.
“Our compensation model is intended to encourage employees to think like owners, which is why it connects total compensation to the company’s long-term performance,” the Amazon spokesperson said in a statement to Fortune. “That model comes with some year-to-year upside and risk because the stock price can fluctuate, but historically at Amazon, it’s had a history of working out very well for people who’ve taken a long-term view.”
A report published last week also dubbed Jassy as one of the most “overpaid” CEOs in the U.S. after it was revealed he took home a total of $212.7 million, while the median Amazon worker receives $32,855. His “excess pay” component accounted for $197.3 million of the total, according to the report from shareholder advocacy organization As You Sow published Thursday.
Unlike its Big Tech peers Google and Apple, Amazon reportedly offers lower salaries but makes up a competitive offer through stock options. It also seems as if relative veterans at the organization could be hit worse by the share depreciation, with employees saying that the longer they stay at the company the more their compensation is dependent on stock awards. For those who have been with the online behemoth the longest, up to 50% of their total income is balanced on market outcomes.
Materials viewed by the Wall Street Journal also reveal Amazon’s HR team has been getting in touch with managers and issuing documentation on how to handle conversations around the effective pay cut.
People added that the compensation scheme is based on the assumption that share value will appreciate 15% every year. In the past that has rung true. In 2015 shares rose 117%, 11% in 2016, 56% in 2017, 28% in 2018, 23% in 2019 and 76% in 2020, according to research platform Macrotrends.
The past two years have not been as rosy for Amazon’s stock price. It fell 2.3% in 2021 and a whopping 49.5% last year.
Not all bad news
The good news for employees is that Amazon has rallied in 2023—up just over 13% at the time of writing. Experts are convinced it’s a trend set to continue: “I struggle to see a company like Amazon not bouncing back from a decline of this magnitude,” Craig Erlam, a senior market analyst for Oanda, told Fox Business.
He added: “Sentiment towards tech stocks takes a little longer to settle, but things should become much clearer over the next few months in respect to the economy and interest rates, at which point attitude towards tech could be very different.”
The so-called war for talent pushed Amazon to reexamine its cash offering in 2022, seeing it raise the component cap within salaries from $160,000 to $350,000. Some of those interviewed by the Wall Street Journal added that this year the company is considering further raises of between 1% and 4% as inflation pressures continue to mount.
However, they added, the shortcoming in share income won’t be offset in further restricted stocks being given to staff.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
GREEN CAPITALI$M
Adani Credit Facilities Send a Chill Through ESG Markets
Greg Ritchie
Mon, February 20, 2023
(Bloomberg) -- Financing arrangements across the Adani Group conglomerate have sent a fresh chill through ESG markets as investors wake up to a new risk.
Norway’s largest pension fund, KLP, recently dumped its entire holding of shares in Adani Green Energy Ltd., the renewables part of the empire, amid concerns that it might inadvertently have helped finance some of the world’s most polluting activities via the stake. A Feb. 10 public filing has since made clear that Adani is using stock from its Green companies as collateral in a credit facility that’s helping to finance the Carmichael coal mine in Australia, via Adani Enterprises Ltd.
KLP has blacklisted coal from its portfolio, so any indirect financing of the Carmichael project would represent a “breach of our commitments,” Kiran Aziz, KLP’s head of responsible investing, said in an interview.
Since short-seller Hindenburg Research published its critical report on Jan. 24, investors have responded to its allegations of fraud and market manipulation by selling Adani shares. But for investors with environmental, social and governance mandates, there’s an added layer of pain as they realize their green dollars were indirectly supporting the dirtiest of fossil fuels.
“Investments in other parts of the Adani Group are leaking into the funding of Carmichael,” said Ulf Erlandsson, chief executive of Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute, which has been tracking the Adani Group since mid-2020. “Investors who have restrictions on funding greenfield thermal coal mining should revisit potential exposures across the whole of Adani Group.”
More than 500 funds registered in the European Union as “promoting” ESG goals hold Adani stocks, either directly or indirectly, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
An Adani spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment. The conglomerate has repeatedly denied the allegations in the Hindenburg report and threatened legal action.
Erlandsson at AFII said an equity investor pledging stock as collateral doesn’t necessarily contaminate other shareholders. But the “high concentration of stock ownership and other interrelationships” in the Adani conglomerate represent an extra layer of risk, he said. A higher price on Adani Green’s stock increases the value of the collateral, lowering the credit risk for SBI’s financing of the coal project, which then “hypothetically, materializes in the bank being able to offer a lower interest rate for Carmichael,” he said.
Adani Green’s stock price has fallen almost 70% this year, while its debt has also slumped. The company said on Feb. 7 it had won the backing of investors after reporting third-quarter net income that more than doubled from a year earlier. Adani Green CEO Vneet S. Jaain said the results proved the company has a “robust capital management program with leverage well aligned with the business model.”
On Feb 16, it emerged that the conglomerate is in talks with potential investors to raise as much as $1.5 billion through note sales by Adani Green, Adani Transmission Ltd. and Adani Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., according to the people familiar with the process.
Read More: Who Is Adani and What Are Hindenburg’s Allegations?: QuickTake
The Hindenburg report found that “Adani Group companies are intricately and distinctly linked and dependent upon one another. None of the listed entities are isolated from the performance, or failure, of the other group companies.” Since the report’s publication almost a month ago, the Adani empire has lost over $135 billion in market value.
The Carmichael coal mine, located inland from Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, has become a lightning rod for climate activists over the environmental destruction the facility represents. Pushback has also come from banks, insurers and investors, amid alarm at the mine’s carbon footprint.
MSCI Inc. gives Adani Green a rating of A, and the entity is included in several of its ESG and Climate indexes. S&P Global Inc. said this month it was removing Adani Enterprises from its Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. Sustainalytics has downgraded the ESG scores of several Adani companies.
MSCI signaled that any updates would take place in connection with regular reviews.
“In general, MSCI ESG and Climate indexes apply screens on MSCI ESG Controversies on a quarterly basis,” an MSCI spokesperson said. “Therefore, for such indexes, any changes to ESG Controversies published by MSCI ESG Research are taken into account at the next regularly scheduled quarterly index review.”
Norway’s KLP, which manages around 765 billion Norwegian kroner ($75 billion), divested its position in Adani Green on Jan. 30, adding to five other Adani companies it had previously excluded from its investment universe.
“Adani’s corporate structure created an unacceptably high risk that ‘clean’ investment could be siphoned off towards coal mining,” Aziz said.
The largest external holder of Adani Green is TotalEnergies SE, which acquired a 20% stake in 2021. The French energy giant confirmed its withdrawal from coal production and marketing in 2015. CEO Patrick Pouyanne said earlier this month that Adani Green and Adani Total Gas Ltd., in which it has also invested, are “healthy” companies.
“The shares TotalEnergies owns in AGEL are not pledged nor used as collateral for any financing or any other project,” a company spokesperson said. “TotalEnergies has no involvement in the use of the shares held by other shareholders of AGEL for collateral or other purposes.”
--With assistance from Gina Turner, P R Sanjai and Saikat Das.
(Adds latest estimate of Adani lost market value in 11th paragraph, fresh comment from MSCI in 14th.)
Greg Ritchie
Mon, February 20, 2023
(Bloomberg) -- Financing arrangements across the Adani Group conglomerate have sent a fresh chill through ESG markets as investors wake up to a new risk.
Norway’s largest pension fund, KLP, recently dumped its entire holding of shares in Adani Green Energy Ltd., the renewables part of the empire, amid concerns that it might inadvertently have helped finance some of the world’s most polluting activities via the stake. A Feb. 10 public filing has since made clear that Adani is using stock from its Green companies as collateral in a credit facility that’s helping to finance the Carmichael coal mine in Australia, via Adani Enterprises Ltd.
KLP has blacklisted coal from its portfolio, so any indirect financing of the Carmichael project would represent a “breach of our commitments,” Kiran Aziz, KLP’s head of responsible investing, said in an interview.
Since short-seller Hindenburg Research published its critical report on Jan. 24, investors have responded to its allegations of fraud and market manipulation by selling Adani shares. But for investors with environmental, social and governance mandates, there’s an added layer of pain as they realize their green dollars were indirectly supporting the dirtiest of fossil fuels.
“Investments in other parts of the Adani Group are leaking into the funding of Carmichael,” said Ulf Erlandsson, chief executive of Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute, which has been tracking the Adani Group since mid-2020. “Investors who have restrictions on funding greenfield thermal coal mining should revisit potential exposures across the whole of Adani Group.”
More than 500 funds registered in the European Union as “promoting” ESG goals hold Adani stocks, either directly or indirectly, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
An Adani spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment. The conglomerate has repeatedly denied the allegations in the Hindenburg report and threatened legal action.
Erlandsson at AFII said an equity investor pledging stock as collateral doesn’t necessarily contaminate other shareholders. But the “high concentration of stock ownership and other interrelationships” in the Adani conglomerate represent an extra layer of risk, he said. A higher price on Adani Green’s stock increases the value of the collateral, lowering the credit risk for SBI’s financing of the coal project, which then “hypothetically, materializes in the bank being able to offer a lower interest rate for Carmichael,” he said.
Adani Green’s stock price has fallen almost 70% this year, while its debt has also slumped. The company said on Feb. 7 it had won the backing of investors after reporting third-quarter net income that more than doubled from a year earlier. Adani Green CEO Vneet S. Jaain said the results proved the company has a “robust capital management program with leverage well aligned with the business model.”
On Feb 16, it emerged that the conglomerate is in talks with potential investors to raise as much as $1.5 billion through note sales by Adani Green, Adani Transmission Ltd. and Adani Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., according to the people familiar with the process.
Read More: Who Is Adani and What Are Hindenburg’s Allegations?: QuickTake
The Hindenburg report found that “Adani Group companies are intricately and distinctly linked and dependent upon one another. None of the listed entities are isolated from the performance, or failure, of the other group companies.” Since the report’s publication almost a month ago, the Adani empire has lost over $135 billion in market value.
The Carmichael coal mine, located inland from Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, has become a lightning rod for climate activists over the environmental destruction the facility represents. Pushback has also come from banks, insurers and investors, amid alarm at the mine’s carbon footprint.
MSCI Inc. gives Adani Green a rating of A, and the entity is included in several of its ESG and Climate indexes. S&P Global Inc. said this month it was removing Adani Enterprises from its Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes. Sustainalytics has downgraded the ESG scores of several Adani companies.
MSCI signaled that any updates would take place in connection with regular reviews.
“In general, MSCI ESG and Climate indexes apply screens on MSCI ESG Controversies on a quarterly basis,” an MSCI spokesperson said. “Therefore, for such indexes, any changes to ESG Controversies published by MSCI ESG Research are taken into account at the next regularly scheduled quarterly index review.”
Norway’s KLP, which manages around 765 billion Norwegian kroner ($75 billion), divested its position in Adani Green on Jan. 30, adding to five other Adani companies it had previously excluded from its investment universe.
“Adani’s corporate structure created an unacceptably high risk that ‘clean’ investment could be siphoned off towards coal mining,” Aziz said.
The largest external holder of Adani Green is TotalEnergies SE, which acquired a 20% stake in 2021. The French energy giant confirmed its withdrawal from coal production and marketing in 2015. CEO Patrick Pouyanne said earlier this month that Adani Green and Adani Total Gas Ltd., in which it has also invested, are “healthy” companies.
“The shares TotalEnergies owns in AGEL are not pledged nor used as collateral for any financing or any other project,” a company spokesperson said. “TotalEnergies has no involvement in the use of the shares held by other shareholders of AGEL for collateral or other purposes.”
--With assistance from Gina Turner, P R Sanjai and Saikat Das.
(Adds latest estimate of Adani lost market value in 11th paragraph, fresh comment from MSCI in 14th.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)