Exhibit A is whatever the President's Jobs and Competitiveness Council (JACC or JACK?) is trying to accomplish with their new publicity push, which was kicked off with a media blitz earlier this week. Here's a WSJ op-ed that spells out the perceived mandate: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576380323311523538.html
For those left scratching heads on how the Council formed, consider a refresher course. President Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt in January to head a lofty group whose mandate is to to generate more domestic jobs -- as in work for those in this country vs. everywhere else in the world. That leaves five months from formation to current frame. Hold that thought for later in the post.
Immelt's appointment was widely hailed despite the fact that as CEO of General Electric he has overseen one of the largest destructions of shareholder value in the company's history. Not to mention the additional fact that at the time of Immelt's appointment the company seemed unwilling to admit that they had failed to generate any high paying jobs in this country since the Jack Welch era. Efforts to contact the company directly for comment would be made with more vigor if there were assurance it would yield revelation beyond their standard line about operating as a global company.
Immelt has since teamed up with fellow smooth sailor American Express CEO Ken Chenault to address the situation. Following are some interpretative highlights of their recommendations. (You will need to read the previous WSJ piece to understand the takeaways.)
1.) Process isn't the product. "Ninety-day recommendations" proceeded by more "strategic actions" over the next 90 days translates into a lot of nothing for six months. Combine the lag between official appointments and final recommendations and we may have nearly a year of inaction during a period when economic recovery indicators have softened. Unfortunately those who occupy rarefied leadership air stumble around according to these frames all the time while Main Street burns. Those of us who actually have to work every day know that life doesn't allow extended strategic review. It requires actually doing something. Pity the rafts of PR staff and executive assistants who have to endure this nonsense.
2.) Flawed content. Specific content contained in the recommendations doesn't inspire a lot of hope in something new and better emerging to replace the old hinges. "Rehire more construction workers" and "boost jobs in travel and tourism" sounds like a pre-Digital Age prescription from the Carter or Reagan administration. If the Council and Obama administration are serious about more employment in the construction sector, where's a renewed public/private sector call for a Manhattan project to rebuild national infrastructure? (originally called for by former NYT columnist Bob Herbert.) Or has stimulus money from the Economic Recovery Act already run out? As to tourism jobs, does this mean turn the country into a big Disney World so more will come and spend their higher valued currency? Someone needs to go interview retailers in southern Maine about what they think about French Canadians from Quebec who invade every summer. That might actually yield some better ideas, or at the very least, dislodge tin ear wax at the 50,000-foot leadership level.
3.) Divide extends even further. Combine 1.) and 2.) with lack of entrepreneurial friendly focus, i.e., "hey guys, did anyone mention trying to start or build something new vs. masking the old via 'innovation?'" and you've got more of what got us into this mess. Status quo thinking from those who have felt zero personal pain in the Great Recession. Which in turn has yielded very little if any forward progress. Granted the economy has been on its ass for a few years but still. Left wing NYT columnist Paul Krugman calls the disconnect a "top down disaster," and more recently has compared the current climate to "rule by rentiers," http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/opinion/10krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman, which refers to special interests that reign supreme by pacifying the asset rich vs. serving common Joe and Jane. This is the most glaring issue that the current administration and none of the Republican candidates for president seem able to tackle. It spreads into most sectors, including big banks, which seem immune to change and forever determined to rig the system to their own benefit at the expense of fixing anything, such as the housing mess. Until the disconnect between the have mores and have nots is restored with something of meaningful value, Nighttime in America will remain present for the foreseeable future. That's a damn shame. We're better than this -- or at least better than what our leaders are supposedly doing to lead. Good day,
JG
Editorial note: Despite named subjects, this is not a political message. It's a call for more common sense that must exist somewhere but doesn't seem to make its way to the highest levels of perceived power.
# # #
No comments:
Post a Comment