Letters: Technology companies capitalize on streamlining

ORANGE, Larry Elliott: Columnist Joel Kotkin seems to suggest that companies have some kind of duty to

MCT illustration

provide employment. His commentary, "TECH-tonic shift" [Commentary, June 2], focuses on how few jobs high-tech companies provide, even as they grow to mega-billions in market capitalization.

In a capitalistic system, companies have no duty to provide any employment. Their sole purpose is to make a profit. An investment is made, an enterprise is established and, if operated well, a profit is made. If insufficient profit is made from the investment of capital and energy, the business is closed. Employment is not a factor in any considerations except as an operating expense or an operating problem (strikes).

Most success for high-tech companies has always been because their products and services have been directed toward reducing staff. CNC machines rapidly replaced machinists (now almost a lost trade skill). "Dial" telephones replaced thousands of operators at the phone companies.

Barcodes have replaced thousands of inventory takers at retailers. Gasoline pumps that take credit cards have replaced thousands of first jobs for kids who used to pump gas for us. The Web allows us to shop at our leisure from all over the world, and no human is involved in the transaction. The change in medical services delivery with the implementation of the computer has been incredible.

The implementation of high-technology into business initially causes staff reductions because the high-tech product is more efficient, which should produce more profits. This is the reason the product or the system was bought – not to need more employees.

Granted, the employee skill mix often changes. An information technology person is needed, but 15 inventory clerks are no longer needed.

High-tech companies typically use the latest in efficiency-boosting, high-tech products from the very start. That is why new companies can produce so many efficiency-boosting products with so few employees so quickly. I suspect this is what Kotkin was trying to illuminate.

The last thing that high-tech companies consider in their formation is any duty to provide employment to anyone. They consider how to make their products provide efficiency-boosting performance or super entertainment or anything that can make a profit with a minimum investment and in a short time.

If you were considering going into business for yourself, would you worry about providing employment for others or about a profit for yourself?

California gun control polarizes the public

SAN CLEMENTE, Jim Pace: After reading a number of articles last week on the most recent bills passed by the California Senate, I decided to read 10 of the firearm bills. I was very dismayed and disappointed in these state bills, and this is coming from a political centrist.

The bills represent a perfect example of how our government can polarize the general public and illustrates how ineffective and inefficient our state government can be – California already has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation. The issue is fairly simple: criminals and the mentally deficient don't follow current gun laws nor will they follow any future gun laws.

Our Legislature should have spent its time addressing mental health issues and guns. None of the bills address this. One bill, SB53, requires that ammunition buyers get a permit, have a background check and pay a fee to purchase ammunition. State Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, likened it to requiring people to register before buying gasoline to put in their vehicles. Simply stated, the bills are unfair, unreasonable and border on being unconstitutional.

My expectation of our Legislature is that they provide leadership and act responsibly, with accountability, for all the citizens of our state. We already know how the far right and far left will respond to these most recent bills, but I am in the middle and I believe they tip the scales far to the left. There is just no evidence of any compromise.

Electric cars: a matter of economics

ANAHEIM, Dick Stegemeier, a former CEO of Unocal: Poor and middle class people don't buy electric cars. Only the rich pay $69,900 for a plug-in electric car ["Tesla looks to charge its way to mainstream," Business, May 31]. So why do they need a $7,500 federal tax credit and a $2,500 California rebate? Are these buyers paying their fair share of taxes? Or are they just getting a free hand-out from taxpaying neighbors?

In California, drivers of conventional gas-powered cars pay about 70 cents in federal, state and sales taxes for a gallon of gasoline or about 3 cents a mile. That's about $360 a year to maintain our highway system. Electric car drivers pay not a penny for using our highway system. Just another "freebie" paid for by their less affluent neighbors.

There's one other dirty little secret, and that's the hidden pollution from the electric power generation that charges the batteries in their cars. An average gasoline-fuelled car emits about one pound of CO2 per mile driven. An electric car charged with electricity from a coal-fired power plant emits the equivalent of about 0.75 pounds of CO2 per mile. That's less than gasoline but far from zero.

In truth, there is no such thing as a zero-emission car unless it's charged with hydro, nuclear, wind or solar. We're not there yet. Until then, let electric cars pay their fair share.


User Agreement



Programs & Promotions
Business Directory
Ads by Google