 |
|
|
|||||
Welcome, and thanks for reading this issue of Fast Companys Plugged In. On August 22, President Donald Trump announced via Truth Social that the U.S. federal government had acquired 10% of Intel. The chipmakers news release trumpeted the deal as historic. That it was. But it was also ignominious. In Trumps own account, he had humbled an iconic American company. Maybe even shaken it down. Fifteen days earlier, he posted to Truth Social that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan had ties to China, which left him highly CONFLICTED and demanded his immediate resignation. On August 11, Tan visited the White House. On August 22, the deal was official. The U.S.s ownership stake in Intel doesnt involve any new funds. Instead, its a retroactive quid pro quo for $8.9 billion the company had already been granted but not yet paid through the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act. Joe Biden signed that bill three years ago, a $280 billion gambit to reverse the decades-long flight of chip manufacturing to Asia. As Trump put it, Tan walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion [the approximate value of the 10% stake] for the United States.” Notably, The Wall Street Journals Robbie Whelan, Yang Jie, and Amrith Ramkumar reported that Taiwans TSMC, the worlds largest chip manufacturer, pushed back against forking over any equity to the U.S.even if declining to do so would require it to give up CHIPS Act money it was getting to help expand its production capacity in Arizona. For anyone who lived through the PCs heyday in the 1990s, seeing Intel run out of options is a stunning development. Its not just that it dominated the market for PC processors so utterly that after years of shrinkage it still has close to a 75% share. More than any other company, Intel once shaped the technologies that kept the technology business booming. In a sense, the entire PC industry became a front for it, to a degree that wasnt obvious then and has since faded into history. For instance, Intel engineers invented USB, maybe the most significant new PC technology of the 1990s. It didnt pioneer Wi-Fi, but its decision to integrate it into a processor2003s Centrinohelped make it standard equipment on every laptop. When Apples thin-and-light MacBook Air became a hit and Intel was concerned that Windows portables were clunky by comparison, it came up with the Air-like Ultrabook; PC makers merely followed its lead. Intel also supplied the motherboards many manufacturers used, allowing it to define a computers feature set and even its shape. In such cases, building a PC amounted to little more than filling out its platform with components such as memory and storage and wrapping a case around it. The 1991 ad that launched Intels wildly successful Intel Inside campaign [Image: Intel] The companys grip on the industry wasnt just technological. Starting in 1991, its Intel Inside campaign convinced millions of people to pay attention to the chips that powered computers. But Intel didnt just buy ads on its own. It also established a co-op fund that paid up to half the cost of ads placed by PC companies. More than 500 of them participated in the program, including brand names such as Dell, HP, IBM, Sony, and Toshiba. The co-op dollars manufacturers received were tied to the quantity of Intel processors they purchased. Naturally, ads subsidized by the fund were required to highlight the Intel Inside message. They also couldnt mention models using chips from other companiesa stipulation that put longtime Intel rival AMD at a massive disadvantage, regardless of the quality of its products. Intels co-op dollars indirectly paid for a disproportionate share of the entire PC businesss marketing budget. At first, magazines such as my former employer PC World benefited from the companys largesse. Later, when Intel instructed manufacturers to divert ad dollars to the web, the magazines felt it in the pocketbook. For a technology company, being all-powerful has its downsides. Andy Grove, Intels third employee and its CEO from 1987 to 1998, summed up his fear of resting on ones laurels in the title of his 1996 bestseller, Only the Paranoid Survive. By the early years of this century, however, Intel began to radiate not paranoia but complacency. As the world changed, it didnt. The results were disastrous. In the 1990s, for example, Intel focused on integrating graphics into its CPUs rather than designing more powerful discrete graphics processorsthe kind sold by smaller, specialized chipmakers such as Nvidia. Then Nvidia proved its graphics chips were also adept at running AI algorithms. Now its the worlds most valuable public company, with a market cap quadruple the size of Intels. And then there were phones. Intel talked to Apple about providing the processor for the first iPhone, but concluded it couldnt turn a profit on the deal. Smartphones went on to be bigger than the PC ever wasand almost none of them ever had Intel Inside. For years, Intel had been synonymous with Moores law, its cofounder Gordon Moores observation that the number of transistors that could fit on an integrated circuit doubled every two years. As techs engines of progress moved beyond the PC, even its ability to stay on the cutting edge of chip manufacturing faltered. When longtime executive Pat Gelsinger rejoined the company as CEO in 2021, it was in desperate need of a turnaround. Gelsingers ambitious strategy involved getting its manufacturing advances back on track and becoming a contract manufacturer (foundry) for chips designed by others. But Intels board ousted him after less than four years, before his vision could play out. That led to Tans appointment and, five months later, the Trump deal. How Tan intends to reset Intel once again remains fuzzy, and Trumps interest in the company may limit Tans options rather than expand them. The U.S. government doesnt have an Intel board seat or, in theory, an active role in steering the company. Yet Intels CEO said the deal is structured to prevent it from selling its foundry unit. Meanwhile, Trump says he hopes for many more instances of his administration extracting equity from businesses that need something from him. In the 1990s, Intel was a shimmeringif occasionally obnoxiousparagon of American manufacturing excellence. Today, with the U.S. tech industry dangerously dependent on Taiwan chip production, Stratecherys Ben Thompson calls its 10% government ownership solution the least bad option. Intels collapse, he argues, would be catastrophic not for the U.S.s leading semiconductor company, but for the U.S. itself. Trump must already be salivating at commandeering the credit for any dramatic turnaround. Just thinking of his triumphant Truth Social posts makes me wincebut I am rooting for him to get the opportunity nonetheless. Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard. More top tech stories from Fast Company How large language models can reconstruct forbidden knowledgeLike a student who once designed a nuclear bomb from textbooks, today’s AI systems can stitch together public scraps of information into dangerous blueprintsat speed, at scale, and without realizing it. Read More Can artists really stop AI from stealing their work?Tools like Glaze and Nightshade aim to muddle AI training, while lawsuits and legislation target AI companies directly. But researchers warn defenses may never fully hold. Read More Emerging drone tech firms are powering the defense industry’s next chapterAgile drone technology companies are breaking into a market long dominated by defense giants, winning contracts through speed, precision, and real-world results. Read More Brands are using your inbox to get ready for a new wave of tariffs‘We don’t want to raise prices, but we will have to.’ Read More How AI is exposing the BS economyAI is revealing just how much work doesn’t need to exist in the first place. Here’s how it can help us fix work. Read More Tech billionaires are building their own private cities. Here’s who’s doing what whereElon Musk, Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, and other tech billionaires are building private towns and compounds, reshaping communities from Texas to Hawaii. Read More
Category:
E-Commerce
When an influencer gets married, its safe to assume much of the cost, from venue decor to personalized invitations, has been comped in exchange for content. Now brides with smaller, more modest followings want in on the action. According to The Wall Street Journal, a new trend has brides-to-be flooding brands with requests for free swag in exchange for TikTok hauls and Instagram posts. @artfromthehart Bachelorette PR | Part 7!! @Avaline @Swisspers @eezcompany @Waterboy @Nemat Perfumes @wooshbeauty @Fruit Riot @Tillamook @GOODLES @Go Mouthwash Thank you to all of these amazing companies that were so generous in sending us PR to spoil the girls! #bachelorettepr #bachelorettebags #bridalpr #bacheloretteparty #bacheloretteplanning #pr #bacheloretteideas original sound – Emily Hartung Guides on how to score freebies are popping up on wedding sites like the Knot, while spreadsheets of brand contacts and ChatGPT-generated scripts are spreading online. On TikTok, one woman admitted to emailing more than 200 companies. Others are showing off hauls of what theyve managed to secureeverything from Octobuddy phone grips for bachelorette photos to LMNT packets for post-party hangovers. @maloreemedia Bachelorette PR Haul Thank you to all the brands that made this weekend and my girls Bach bags so special. @Lotus Plant Power @Good Molecules @Craftmix @Solely: Organic Fruit Snacks @OCTOBUDDY @LesserEvil Snacks @Get Lotza #bachpr #bachelorette #brandgifts #bachelorettepr #bachelorettebags Walking Around – Instrumental Version – Eldar Kedem Some brands told The Journal that theyre happy to oblige, calling it a win-win: Brides shave costs while companies gain exposure. But smaller businesses are pushing back, frustrated by the flood of requests. @chelseyibrown Brides – please stop asking for free gifts from small businesses Also – for those who keep saying its a mistake to not send my products to influencers with tons of followers: I get more ROI sending gifts to average people who need my products!! AND I LOVE the idea of sending gifts to people who wouldnt normally get PR – especially products this meaningful This business model has worked extremely well so far!! original sound – Chelsey Brown David Maffei, owner of Halfsies Cookie Co., went viral in 2024 after posting an Instagram Reel of an exchange with a bride-to-be. She asked for free cookies to include in her bridal boxes, describing herself as a beginner influencer with fewer than 1,000 followers. Maffei declined and called her out. Influencer is a wild label,” he wrote. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Halfsies Cookie Company (@halfsiescookieco) Critics say the requests are tacky. Others argue content monetization is simply the norm now. After all, if influencers can unbox more free products than they could ever use, why shouldnt brides try too? As the saying goes: Dont ask, dont get. The financial pressures are real. Bachelorette parties have ballooned into multiday trips, with the average cost hitting $10,800 in 2023, up 40% from $7,700 in 2021, according to Bach. Social pressure, comparison culture, and rising vendor prices have pushed costs higher. And thats before the actual wedding. With the stakes so high, its not hard to see why brides are tempted to cut corners where they can.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sometimes, when a friend from high school finds out that I write about money, they will tell me their retirement plan is to assume they wont survive the inevitable climate apocalypse. This is always said with an ironic smile, and often followed up with, Its not like Social Security is gonna be there for us, either. These dark comments dont surprise me, considering Im also a member of the generation that adopted Oh well, whatever, never mind as a rallying cry. I was born at the tail-end of Gen X, but I was card-carrying a latchkey kid who didnt trust authority, consistently prepared myself for disappointment, and wore a mask of ironic detachment that has served me well throughout my life. In fact, until I was asked to literally write the book on Social Security in 2015, I too believed that there would be no benefits available for me when I retired. It was what Id been told, and it fit my skeptical worldview. The truth is, our Social Security benefits may be in danger, but not in the way we Gen Xers have braced ourselves for. We need to recognize whats going right with this program so we can understand what might go wrongand then we can fight for the right to have a retirement party! Distrust for the trust fund Every few months, a new article will raise the alarm about the imminent depletion of the Social Security trust fund. According to current projections, the trust fund will be completely wiped out sometime around the year 2033. Such articles are 100% factually correctand completely beside the point. Because the trust fund isnt really a trust fund and it doesnt really matter if its empty. Heres why: The trust fund that isnt Social Security is designed as a direct transfer of funds from current workers to current beneficiaries. In the early days of the program, when the Social Security Administration (SSA) collected more in taxes than was owed in current benefits, the law specified that the overage would be invested in government debt (like Treasury bonds) at a guaranteed minimum interest rate of 3%. This is both the safest possible investment for government funds and the most responsible use of excess Social Security taxes, since such large amounts of money cannot sit around as cash. However, even in the 1930s, there were critics who accused President Roosevelt and the new Social Security Administration of embezzling those excess taxes. To end the controversy, the government created the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund at the Treasury in 1939. But the OASI is not actually a trust fund since it doesnt have trustees with legal title or beneficiaries with an enforceable legal right to the property in trust. Its just another account in the U.S. Treasury that FDR called a trust fund to get his critics off his back. The trust funds bottom dollar Semantics aside, the trust fund is on track to run out of money in about eight years. (This is the moment when most Gen Xers would put on Exile in Guyville and think about why righteous rage feels better than hope.) What you need to remember is that the trust fund is not the primary source of benefits. Once it has been depleted, the SSA can afford to pay 77% of promised benefits. At that point, all funds will come from direct handover from current workers to current beneficiaries. No one would claim that 77% of promised benefits is ideal, but its definitely not nothing. Another important point to remember is that weve been here before. Back in 1983, Social Security faced a shortfall that was mere months away. The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act ensured the trust fund operated with a surplus from 1984 to 2009. Unfortunately, Congress in the 1970s (and earlier) knew the shortfall was coming in 1983. The U.S. government uses 75-year projections for its social insurance program, unlike any other country in the world. But if history is any guide, we may see Congress wait until the last minute to do anything, just like their predecessors in the early 80s did. What could keep Gen X from collecting Social Security The trust fund insolvency issue can be fixed by Congressional action, but thats rarely mentioned in articles discussing the imminent shortfall. There is nothing stopping Congress from acting to fix this shortfall. While the dwindling trust fund is a problem, its a workable one, provided Congress quits twiddling its thumbs. However, there are potential problems that could keep Social Security benefits out of Gen X hands. (And millennial, Gen Z, etc., if were interested in protecting the whippersnappers, too). Recognizing the actual potential disasters can help us put our considerable take-no-prisoners energy where it belongs. Worker-to-beneficiary ratio There has been quite a lot of ink spilled about lowered birth rates in America. Other than breaking a number of would-be grandparents hearts, this may seem to have nothing to do with Social Securitybut a country with a lower birth rate and an aging population will have fewer workers to pay into its social insurance program. While the current administration has suggested some pronatalist policy proposals to reverse our declining birth ratesincluding offering a $5,000 baby bonus to new mothersthere are better and more effective alternatives. Specifically, immigration is a huge net benefit to the worker-to-beneficiary ratio for Social Security. Noncitizens who are eligible to work in the United States receive a Social Security numberand they payinto the Social Security systembut they are not eligible for benefits. And new immigrants who become citizens help lower the age of the population, skewing the ratio toward workers. This is why making immigration easier is one of the best ways to protect our Social Security benefits while we wait for Congress to get going on fixing the shortfall. Privatization of Social Security Twenty years ago, President Bush made waves when he suggested privatizing Social Security via voluntary personal retirement accounts. The public wasnt impressed, and the idea was quietly shelved. Until now. Recently, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggested that the newly created tax-deferred investment accounts that have been dubbed Trump accounts could serve as a backdoor to Social Security privatization, although the Treasury has since backed away from the comments. Proponents of privatization claim that it would be more fair than the current system, since it allows workers to control how much they put aside and where it is invested. But such proponents misunderstand the point of Social Securityits a safety net for our most vulnerable citizens. Social Security is a guaranteed source of income backed by the full faith and credit of the United States governmentwhich is as close to certainty as is possible to get in this world. Privatizing this program would change it into just another investment vehicle with zero guarantees. Privatization might sound like a good deal if you think youre gambling with something that may not be there. But Social Security is a sure thing, making privatization more like playing dice with a game you were guaranteed to win. Social Security has long been called the third rail of politics, as George Bush quickly learned in 2005 (and at the height of his popularity)! Its our job to ensure our representatives keep their hands off itor else get a nasty shock. Believe in life after Social Security Being the bomb-proof generation thats never surprised by disappointment is a double-edged sword. Weve learned to navigate a lot of crap with grace and gallows humor, but its also left us vulnerable to fixating on worst-case scenarios. After a lifetime of being told Social Security benefits would dry up before we retired, Gen X may be unprepared for the real disasters this important program might face. Yes, the trust fund is projected to run out of funds in less than a decade, at which point beneficiaries can only count on 77% of promised benefits. But thats not the real issue, because Congress can work to fix it anytime they want to get off their rear ends. One of the real dangers is the change in worker-to-beneficiary ratio as the American birth rate declines and the population ages. Making immigration easier is one of the most effective and efficient ways to improve this problem and is something Gen X can vote for locally and nationally. The suggestion of privatization is another potential danger, since it would trade the surety of guaranteed Social Security incomebacked by the full faith and credit of Uncle Samfor the risk of another investment vehicle. These dangers are more likely to occur if youre sure Social Security wont be there for you. Why do you think The Man has convinced you that you cant retire?
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||