tv America the Courts CSPAN February 5, 2011 7:00pm-8:00pm EST
there was a company called sayit so egyptians could tweet through their phones. this was a facebook said they are not in the business for activist purposes, but they are, whether they want to be or not. >> what role does facebook and twitter play in egypt and the last week or so? >> you could say it made all the difference, but all the people they mobilized using social media, but then you could say it did not play as big a role as we might have thought because when they shut down the internet, the protests grew. so i think that it's definitely -- rather than looking at this particular event or in tunisia
or iran, what we need to do is look at the way in which sold short -- culture, the society, and the political structure is changing. all of these technologies exist within a context, and that helps shape what they mean. >> what is the context? >> it is the culture and the economy and the unemployment rate and all of those things. the way i look at it, when people get used to using it as a communicating tool, it changes how they live. if they have grievances and they feel like they had a chance to express those grievances, whether it will online or in the privacy of their home, they tend to get expressed. when they collect, that is when the social media comes in, to see, i am not alone in this, i have 2 million people who feel exactly the same way.
the social media tools allow people to reach critical mass and a way that, without it, they seem to not be able to do. >> have you been monitoring tweets from other countries, such as jordan, which seems to have a the or a billion? >> yemen is interesting. 1.8% of the society has access to the internet, and that represents 2000% growth. >> is it because of poverty, government restrictions? >> it is both. the literacy, poverty, government restrictions, put it all together. the basic point is we are having rebellions in yemen without massive access to the internet. that would be a case where you try to make a case for social media, you cannot lead to look at yemen.
but jordan, 28%, almost 30% has access to the internet. the king built telecommunication centers through the country, including impoverished area, and wants to be part of that economy, but they're giving people access and they will communicate their demands. the jordanians have said that what freely and fairly elected representative governments. we'll have to see how that plays out. >> have you seen any more governments in the middle east restricting access to the internet or mobile services? >> i have been observing the opposite. in algeria, the president said we will have an end to emergency law coming soon.
thean's king dissolved cabinet, dismissed his prime minister, put an interim prime minister in place, and is trying to do that change. the syrians supposedly this weekend are mobilizing against emergency laws. people looking at these examples to manage the change in more moderate ways rather than revolution. >> on the other side of this is terrorism and the use of the internet by al qaeda, etc. is that still a factor? >> yes. one person i was speaking with from the intelligence community, they said look at al qaeda, look at the arabian gulf. supposedly, that group is very actively using the internet for recruitment purposes. they have a journal called inspire, and they had just said
they have got very skilled at recruiting, especially westerners. what i always say to my students is that this is a very small percentage of the people in the region. it is a fringe movement, and really i hope what is happening in egypt and tunisia and jordan and yemen refocuses attention on the masses at and what they're asking for, which is what we want, freedom, a good job, good life. >> what are you currently teaching? >> have a seminar called new world disorder, middle east. >> why is that important to teach at the naval academy? >> we have future naval officers who will be in the service of this country, and many in the region we are talking about today, and it gives them an opportunity to do a 30 page research paper on a
topic of their choice as long as it rebates to that theme -- as long as it relates to that theme. >> why is it important? >> the middle east is not going anywhere. it is an area of strategic importance. general petraeus has said we are interested in stability, oil, the palestinian-israel and conflict, and those will become more important in the information age. we need our men and women in uniform to be aware. >> if you had to make a definitive statement about the role of social media in the middle east, what with the definitive statement be? >> it is a game changer. we appreciate your participation on "the communicators." >> thank you for having me.
>> c-span, created as a public service by america's cable companies. next, leaders of ibm and dell give their recommendations for how the federal government can save $one -- $1 trillion over the next couple decades. after that, microsoft chairman bill gates attend a conference on the u.s. global leadership coalition. after that, paying tribute to the nation's 40th president, the late ronald reagan, who would have turned 100 tomorrow. >> tonight, former vice president dick cheney is the featured speaker at the closing banquet marking the 100th anniversary of the birthday of president ronald reagan, taking place at the right and center in santa barbara, calif.. but our coverage at 10:15 p.m. eastern, on c-span. >> sunday, george washington
university prof. nathan brown discusses the latest developments in egypt and how a change in government could affect the entire middle east. then at democratic strategist and former republican national committee director talked about president obama's reelection efforts and senators who could be in danger of losing their seats in 2012. after that, a presidential historian marks the 100th birthday of ronald reagan and talks about the legacy of the nation's 40th president, plus your e-mail and phone calls. that is live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> this weekend, on c-span3, we will visit the old naval observatory, which operated until 1893 in washington, d.c. we will look at the fugitive slave laws of 1850 and held indirectly resulted in the expansion of the underground
railroad, and a look at the political cartoons of the civil war. experience in american history tv on c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. for a complete schedule, go to c-span.org/history. >> mr. president, it is my great honor today to speak on the floor for the first time as a u.s. senator. >> the new class has been giving their first speeches on the senate floor. follow their appearance is on line with congressional chronicle. track time lines, read the transcripts, and fund a full video archive of every member. congressional chronicle, c- span.org/congress. >> next, the heads of ibm and dell give their recommendations for how the federal government can save $1 trillion over the next decade, while improving its place in the global economy.
posted for the center for strategic and international studies, this is 50 minutes. >> we will really dive into this very quickly. i will not waste our time with introducing them to you. that is why you are here, you know who they are. i don't need to do that. i want to say i am so glad to see a little gray on michael del's hair. that is a good thing for somebody like me. the president emphasized the need for a more effective government. i know these are private conversations, but what can you
share with us about this conversation? what is it that he told you? >> [inaudible] >> we need to get your microphone. >> technology. where are my handlers? seriously, we are part of a group that meets with the government a couple times per year, 8 c.e.o.'s of large companies, setting the tone for the meeting. the president was gracious with his time, with people from omb, treasury, a good group of folks. basically, if i could fragment at the highest level, we talked about competitiveness.
much like you heard in the state of the and and, and what are the elements of competitiveness. we had a very good dialogue, a lot of interaction, a lot of different points of view. we expressed our verse. there were very responsive. we had three big points, not tax, competitive corporate tax structure, trade, which in our industry nearly 70% of our industry is outside of the united states and the growth is outside of the united states, and then we got into ways of, ok, but dressing the corporate tax rate as long as it was deficit neutral, and then michael articulate it a proposal whereby they could address $1 trillion of productivity or efficiency that exists within the government which is
basically using what we have all dawn over the past 10 years -- what we have all done of the past 10 years. it was a basic business practice we have all done to improve the competitiveness of our own companies. most of us have been here a lot the last couple years, and there was i think a sincere and keen interest in addressing why the u.s. is not more competitive. then we might disagree on the details, but at least from the importance of the country's agenda, my observation, it has moved way up from where it was two years ago. >> i agree, it was great to see competitiveness on the agenda. as sam said, a genuine interest addressing some of the short- term and long-term issues that
have been standing and the way. we had a frank discussion about what that means in terms of other countries out there, what it means for tax, trade, government efficiency and productivity, and education. there is a lot to be done. the world is changing quickly, and partisan activities, while other nations are advancing rapidly, as not help our cause as americans. while we are global companies and we do things all over the world, we are still americans. we want our country to succeed. so we are interested in seeing real action taken against how does america stay competitive and stay relevant and grow the
standard of living that we have here in this country. >> i was in government and several times was called over to meetings with guys like you and the white house, and we have a wonderful meeting. the world is different now, all of that. two days later, you don't remember the meeting. why is this going to be different? what are you prepared to do to make this different? >> i think what i see different is that think the magnitude of the challenge has made it on to the agenda. we have this enormous debt on the country. the competitive pressures that are showing up relative to competing nations are much more obvious. i think there is a real crisis in a number of states, various
geographies, where there are particular challenges. we cannot afford to ignore these issues. we also don't believe that it is too late. if we take decisive action, a lot of progress can be made. but we have to jump into action quickly. >> you are right, we have all been to a lot of these, but i think what came out of the meeting different than others was not that the group's talk to each other, we actually agreed in certain areas that we would work with each other on tax, establishing a set of principles. he has met with our cfo, and they're back again, tax cuts are coming and perry there is a schedule, a work plan in place. we met with some of the people on the hill, and agreed we should get the principles established.
it will be a negotiation, but have to start someplace. this is the first time in the last two years when it comes to corporate taxes being competitive. there is i would argue real work under way. there are teams at the table negotiating, trying to put something together. to me, that is a sign of progress. we have lots of statistics on why we are not competitive, but we had the statistics two years ago as well. the other thing that came up on trade, the administration asked us to make the case. they get it, every time you look at an existing sta, service is better, agriculture is better, that is the data. these are the facts, but nobody understands the facts. we're just saying, let us compete.
we are fine. we can compete. now we have to sell the case. that is not the perception of the average american, especially with high unemployment. it is a complicated task. on the ways to save money or make government smaller, fundamentally, he told us that in the cabinet meeting that morning, i don't think this is confidential, he instructed the cabinet to work on these elements to drive a smarter government and he had a long list of ro-do's. -- to-do's. that is the nature of getting things done. i am kind of where you are.
we both got out of the same school about a year apart, so we are probably close in age. nonetheless, having been to these so many times, there's real work under way, people doing work, making recommendations, negotiating, give-and-take. it is hard for us as business people to underestimate what is necessary politically to get anything done, and that would be in the area where we did not have a lot of expertise. we can only help people do analysis, the facts, the things we do for livings. >> what we know is here in washington, people talk about things being scored. what i know is this return on investment. return on investment in our business and our customers return on investment, and the
kinds of things when we talk about this trillion dollars of savings, these are things with 30%, 40% return on investment. scoring, i will be the first to admit i don't understand it, but i do understand very high return on investment, and those are things, whether a company or government, ought to be done. the way that you drive it, you say this will save one, $50 million, we will take that out of your budget in the future. we go get the savings and we have accountability to make it happen. >> that is part of the dilemma. i used to be the comptroller at dod, and it makes it really hard because you say i'm going to take money away from you as long as you do the right thing now, but you are right. , you get into this report
were instrumental in this report. by the way, you really ought to read it. i think the audience needs to get a little bit of familiarity with what it is that you are concretely saying needs to be done. consolidating information technology. you have each had experiences with this. maybe you want to share what you have done with their companies, things like that. >> fundamentally, if you think about what we're talking about, a lot of times people think, these are complicated, technical projects. all we're talking about is putting things together and sharing them. this is not ibm working on the space shuttle, this is taking what exists, putting it together to share it. it at ibm, we had 84 data centers that went down to 14, we
saved $3 billion. plus you reduce energy consumption. is months of work, years of work, just planning and literally putting things together. it is extremely straightforward. we will go with the public data, but if you just take that, that is the thing about it, does the government need it 2000 data centers? there are 50 states, how about 2 per state? that is 100. everybody gets their fair share. just share them. i know is an incredible concept, sharing them. the sheer electricity, water, the phone system.
share this, too, and it is a couple million dollars of savings. the way now is we have ritualize the environment and is 40% return, and the payback is 15 months. and almost be done any budget cycle. >> in it something about the size of half a container, which pute nodes withmo 30, 40 virtual servers, and we can put 14 terabytes of storage. this is an enormous level of efficiency that exists in historical commercial environments. you have heard about cloud computing.
the clout competing companies have already done this and we supply the infrastructure for 21 of the top 25 large commercial organizations were doing this as well. the government can do this, and there is enormous savings in this kind of consolidation and really holding on to the stuff that it six years old when the rate of improvement is so fast -- it is axel incredibly expensive, not to mention the enormous power savings. when you do it the consolidation and fertilization -- and virtual computing, you reduce power consumption by 95%. you do not need all of these small outposts. >> i remember during y2k, we actually removed card punch readers from the defense
department. >> thank you for being a loyal customer. >> when i learned computer science, we did not have those. at the ibm centennial, which is this year. >> one of the other major recommendations was supply chain management. you have written a book on this. what are your thoughts about what can be done with supplies? >> will we see is an enormous amount of difference supply chains and collapsing, consolidating those using full technology, information to replace physical assets, all the things that have occurred in the world's best companies. the plan best practices to that and saying, do we need hundreds
are thousands of these -- or thousands of these, that to be streamlined. >> the report says the government spends five under $50 billion per year on supply chain -- $550 billion. you're on supply chain. at ibm, we save $25 billion on a small spending base. 10% is very conservative. the reason why you need these hundreds of supply chains to procure for the government when you could pick 10. ours is probably a little simpler, we are only in 170 countries around the world, but there is real savings. the estimates in this report are very conservative, looking at 10% improvement.
>> washington is a town of 15 goals and no puck. you have had to deal with this, taking a big bureaucracy, but you have tools the government does not have. >> well, we have management. [laughter] i am not being glib. we actually can assign somebody ou. i have a full-time senior executive who worked for me, and we say to linda, between at 2006 and 2010, we need $5 billion of productivity. in 2015 we say we need $8 billion. she is an engineer and she goes to work, but there is somebody. people say cannot happen in government, but the states. at that assign somebody would call on operations person.
they don't call them the cheap operating officer -- the chief operating officer, but they have these huge views, citing individuals to go work these cases and, oh, by the way, guess where they start, sharing things. data centers, procurement, all those kinds of things is where they began. i know anything about the private sector analogy you think it cannot apply. my only point is that it can apply. at the state level that applies, so it applies the state level, why not at the federal level? >> we are seeing this with large universities in the united states. we're saying it at the state level. a company like ours, we will sit
down and say we will drive 10% productivity improvement every year. how? collaboration, tools, technology, and fast. then we take money out of the budget and provide value for the customers so they can thrive with the technologies that work. >> every ceo will say the cloud the thing, that is dangerous, cyber security. what shall we be telling washington about cloud computing and safety? >> to be clear, there are multiple ways to implement a cloud. there are different ways to do it.
if i was running national defence or tsa, all that good stuff, you'd have to look at it differently than if you're just sharing an office. becloud it is a virtual lies the environment. 30 years ago at at ibm it was called a virtual machine. we still had keypunches, but on virtual machines. it has not changed that much, it has just been moved from mainframes to infrastructure. is based on the informant. if you are dod or nsa, these are very real issues, but they can
be architect and designed and there is software that will secure the environment, if it would like it. or they could write it themselves. a lot of the civilian war that led to the cloud is the office environment -- a lot of the civilian work that led to the cloud is the office environment. in civilian agencies, it is not the same level of concern, although there is simple protection. we're getting 50% product improvement, everything in every i.t. shop is develop and test. you develop capacity, write new applications, it runs in this environment. what you do if you used for july's architecture, a cloud, you just share it and instead of taking two weeks to provision these things and set the systems
of, we do it in four hours and is 50% less expensive. there is no security risk in the government to do those things because it is behind the firewall, in their secure environment. what i would tell them is if they stand back from it, not all things are the same. we did all of this analysis at ibm, and it is very true that all that lends itself to the cloud. that is probably about 40% of what we do, but 60% of what we do it is legitimate work that could run in that environment. i guess what i would say is that things cannot go unchallenged.
if things were moving on and things were great it would be business as usual, but we're not in the circumstances. we have great risks and productivity, we have a financial debt structure that was not sustainable. none of us couldn't run those levels of debt and keep our jobs. only in a political environment could that be the case. to sit there and not ask ourselves honest, detailed, factual questions about solving the problem i think is not appropriate for any organization. i will say that about my own, and i don't want to pontificate about others, but it is not appropriate. we are in a financial crisis. let's wake up and act like it. >> we are often talking about secure private clouds. just to draw the distinction
from the public cloud. the other collective experience and the industry is that if you stand in the way of the enormous improvements in technology that continue to come, you do it at your own peril. you lose relevance and fall behind. there have been an enormous advances in our industry, and this is where if you add up the basic opportunities that are easily accessible, that is $1 trillion. >> michael, you invented a new model for your business but you had to convince the industry that is something profoundly different, but you did that. sam, you reengineered ibm into a very dynamic, new company. both of you have been proven
leaders. let me ask you to step back with some detachment, look at washington, where the average political appointee is an office 26 months. when you have to change organization, people have to think you're got to be there are a long time and you'll be on them like ugly on an ape, and we have political appointees to disappear. had we get that sense of leadership, mandate, direction, urgency and a government informant that has this turbulence among the leaders. you have thought about this. >> we are actually elected every year by our shareholders. >> we made that point a lot the past two days. we have a 12 month cycle. >> i think we are sort of reaching the point where this is a national crisis, where it the
planning horizon of the competitive landscape is much longer and proving itself to be far more effective. so china it is in its 12th five- year plan, and they have it for each industry sector. meanwhile, we have the partisan discussions, how to deal with it, how to do with that. that is a formula for disaster. we need to get real serious about addressing the systemic issues in productivity, education, competitiveness, and how we as a nation -- remember, we have 4% of the world's population and we have roughly half of the wealth. that is a great thing, but the world is changing out there quickly, and we have to get in gear the things that worked two decades ago did not work as
well with this competitive landscape shifting. >> that may come at that a different way. michael gave me the benefit of thinking about it for some time. thank you, michael. what we would do in business is we would actually go establish the process. we're talking about 2015, a process and the metrics for the next five years, and that is now hard wired into the business. every year, every quarter, every month, which ever is, it adds up to $8 billion. all of the products are identified, short-term deals, long-term deals. i believe if you actually look at the things we talk about, the $1 trillion, just take that, and establish the process, but the metrics in place, put somebody
in charge, maybe a civil servant, not an appointee, and then we have their reward system for doing well, -- but i guess there is more risk in the private sector, but fundamentally, how the establish the metrics, define the process, and have somebody responsible to drive this initiative over multiple years? >> john, i would like to nominate sam. >> no, no, no. us baltimore guys have to get back to baltimore sometimes. >> both of you referred to a competitive landscape. i don't think most americans realize how far behind we are. if you leave beijing
international airport and fly into lax, it is embarrassing. it is like going back 30 years in time when you get here, yet we have this vision we are ahead of everybody. it you have international operations, you interact with people on a global basis. how we make this tangible and real to americans? >> i think the thing -- dodge, tangible and real? the thing that comes to mind to me that people can relate to with what is happening, measure the emergence of the middle class. this is what i don't think people get in the united states. that is soon in china or india or brazil that everything is car related to their export -- that everything is correlated to their exports and natural resources, and therefore all tied to the u.s. and maybe germany.
but you go around this room, people would say that as the model. one statistic i will share, 500 million people entering the middle class the next two years, those 500 million people want cars, houses, cell phones, banking accounts, air- conditioner is, all those things. they expect transportation to work, that expect secure, safe cities, quality health care, all those things. how did this countries that are emerging, therefore and the third world, how they address it? they get everything that we have done. it is all wireless. they have been doing music and entertainment in india for 10 cents, and we wrote the software four years ago. simple things.
you look at the highway systems in shanghai. they built a loop around shanghai in a year. one year, an entire city, one year. at one point in time, the largest share of the crane capacity in the world was in shanghai. all the cranes, 70% was in shanghai. we talk about rail and innovation for the country. china decided it would build the largest high-speed rail network and the world, appropriate to billion dollars, off you go. but -- they appropriate $two billion, off you go. china is here, we are here, number of graduates, etcetera but i think the first thing that needs to be understood is that
these are not developing countries. these countries have a huge amount of well educated, middle- class people who are entering into their societies, right, who will drive massive economic transformation. that sounds a little intimidating, i understand, but mixed point, go to the other side, -- but it makes the point. now go to the other side, and they don't have a lot of debt. checks, $2t writing billion here, $2 billion there. >> fortunately, the lender has a long-term horizon, for the time being. >> i think the other way to look at it, okay, what are the inherent advantages?
the old competitive advantage, economics, basically, what are the inherent advantages of the united states that we have? guess what we have. we have an incredible university system, the ability to innovate and create and research intellectual properties, we have rule of law, which is the right for an individual to create an event and be protected. we had and will have again a very transparent capital market system so you can become michael dell. we have and we will have again this variable task. yes, we have education problems and we like our broward system to be better and i like to get to the airport on time but i cannot, and we have all these things. we have all these other things. what is missing?
what is missing is somebody saying, you know what, like the duke and india, brazil, china, we will take this country from here to there. i am not talking about sputnik, we're going from here to there. we will set up an innovation agenda, drive innovation, and these are the elements to create that society. then go out and sell the case. cosell the case. if you cannot sell it and people say they did not want it, then have what we have today. >> and it has to be a national priority. if you take things that people are familiar with, there are about 5 billion people in the world with cell phones, 1.5 billion people connected on the internet. much larger than the u.s. population, and the fastest growth is in the emerging nations.
1.3 billion cell phone users in china, china and india together, adding about 15 million new subscribers per month between the two of them. enormous industrialization, modernization, skipping passed all of the legacy kinds of problems and saying, ok, what should this look like in five years, 10 years, let's leap ahead to that part. >> let me ask a washington question. you guys set we need to improve productivity, increased productivity, getting taxes down, but the industry is sitting on the biggest pile of cash in history. why would we think this is a problem? this is a washington question, i happen to agree with you, but what we say to the broader
public is the problem? >> it is not the fact that business has over the past couple years shored up their balance sheets because of economic uncertainty. most households would do the same thing. to say that is inappropriate behavior in a difficult environment is silly. at the end of the day, ibm is around 100 years, i don't want to be the guy who took it down because i got it wrong. you know? sam crashed it because he got drunk one night at a party and spent $10 billion, but it was wonderful, he should have been there. it was unbelievable. just a little bit of, sober up, let's act like adults. the question is, why are you investing more? it is not the balance sheets, it is what are you not investing more? that gets back to competitiveness, because we
invest where there is opportunity for growth. we spent two days, and michael laughs when i do this, try to explain to people who have never worked in the private sector that the only thing we have to invest is what is left over. you'll know this at home because you take home your paycheck, some portion goes to government, depending on where you are, 30%, and you spend what is left over. we do the same thing. the numbers are bigger, but we take what is never left over and we reinvest into growth opportunities -- we reinvest whatever is left over into growth opportunities. if you take more from us, there is less to invest. and by the way, that is okay, but if you compare the west to the rest of the world, we're taking dramatically more, 10% above average, than the rest of the world. we are taking out 10% more, so
there is 10% less to invest. not to turn this into an ibm commercial, but last year we open centers all across the united states, invested in the united states. we spent $6 billion on research and development, $6 billion on acquisitions, gave $15 billion back to the shareholders, something like that, round numbers, and by the way, we open centers in d.c. and new york and data centers and charlotte and boulder, columbus, east lansing, probably some more. but a couple of the west coast, also. it is not a question of that. i think the question becomes, what you need to do if you are in washington and you were the people who make these statements -- obviously went to johns hopkins and you would never say this, but you have to ask yourself this, and i turn it around.
i say, look, people can go anywhere in the world. they can. businesses can go anywhere in the world, work anywhere in the world. the question is, why would they come here? that is the question. not you are not spending enough. why would they come here? why would you come and invest in the united states of america when you can invest elsewhere and instead of giving 30% to the government you are giving 10%? by which to compete for 100,000 graduates when you could compete for 600,000 in that same country? why would you come here when you could go to informants that are very green-oriented and don't have requirements that force us to close facilities because of the have a plan -- because i have a plant that has the same emissions as a church?
why are you going to ask a manufactured have the same ambitions as a church? when you close the churches, too? ask the question of ourselves. i think if you ask yourself the question, when people have ultimate choice, money can flow, and fast, they all need returns, we're not just pretty businesses, why not? why would go to ibm, why would they go to dell? if you are a state, federal, or city government, you need a value proposition that the tracks the smartest people in the best flow of capital to be competitive. if you don't do that, there is too much choice today, michael's point, and moves too fast, and it does not have a happy ending. >> it goes back to competitiveness.
we have to address the competitiveness issues or the capital was not interested. whether it is for companies or domestic companies or new businesses forming, they will go where the talent is and the infrastructure is and where the environment is friendly towards growth and business formation. >> let me ask you, i cannot figure out why the most prosperous and successful country in the world wants to limit the number of talented people who come here. we have half as many visas as we did 15 years ago. that does not make any sense. i think we would be craving talent. tell me how you look at this talent issue, international? >> i think both of us have a lot of open positions in the united states that we are trying to
hire got. >> thousands. and exactly. unfortunately, we cannot find all of those folks. they're highly skilled, software programmers, engineers, and i totally agree, we ought to be stepping green cards with ph.d. certificates -- we ought to be stamping green cards with ph.d. certificates. if you look at the history and the tech sector, that very talented group of immigrants have continued to contribute for many years to not only the growth of many great companies but the creation of many great companies. >> michael bloomberg, another plug for johns hopkins university, -- no, he is doing a great job, but i heard all of
this yesterday at the centennial speech. he has a proposal to basically give them all green cards and let them come to new york because they are all tax payers. >> imagine if you were mayor of any city in america and you said, hey, how would you like to have a bunch of smart, well educated, a reasonably well finance people come to your city and develop businesses? i don't think you would find a lot of mayors would say that as a bad idea, we don't want them. these are job creators. to have people employed, you need employers. >> there is a statistic that we need to focus on, because you understand and i am sensitive to the fact that politically, unemployment is 9.4%. let's use the public data. therefore, how can you encourage
all of these other people? let's look at unemployment. let's appeal that back. a college graduate and advanced degrees, between two months ago, is 4.8%-5.2%. close to full employment. a high-school education, 15.6%. do we have an unemployment problem or education problem? because if you have a college degree or advanced degree, statistically, 95%-96% will get a good job. and we'll have openings, so you probably will. what is the real problem? the talk about you cannot bring in ph.d.'s or intellectual engineers. this people have plenty of jobs. we need those skills to build these businesses. >> the story we could tell over and over, teams of engineers that we have.
we bought a little company in new hampshire, 200 engineers, now has six under 50. the fastest growth but -- now that has 650. at the fastest growth from that group of engineers is in china and india, brazil, all over the world. fortunately, we are able to find enough talent, but if we want to go to 1000 engineers, we cannot quite find them, what we do? we go wherever they are. >> it is an education issue. >> at think the administration is doing a good job of trying to tackle a tough problem. and that is at the federal level. >> these are tough problems and there has been a lot of forward progress in the right direction. i think back to the reception we got at the white house at this meeting --
>> we are down to the wire, and their handlers are giving me the "we have to get out of here." we have summoned the most influential and my the audience -- mighty audience. >> and they are not our employees. they might be dell people, i don't know. >> what is it that you need them to do with this mission? what do they need to be doing to help with this? >> what i would say is go take that report and take a good look at that and familiarize yourself with this whole competitiveness and agenda. it really has to get on the consciousness of the planners and intelligence yet in washington, because this is a national problem.
>> i would just complement what michael is saying. it is the same thing we have said at all the meetings. when everybody says what are the three biggest inhibitors to competitiveness, it is tax, a trade, and education. that is about it. if you have a level playing field, tax and trade, you invest in intellectual capital, we have great faith that the best system in the world, the best system and the world -- look, we are invested in 170 countries, so i have a benchmark for those of you who cannot bend to 170 countries -- i have a benchmark to the 170 countries. seriously, if you look at that and you have this inherent strength, why would we not capitalize that to deal with these issues and move to the future? deal with the issues and move to
the future. there is a correlation. a business can never survive by dwelling on the past. michael has done it for 26 years, ibm has done at 100 years. it happened they exist in technology 100 years? -- how could they exist in technology and 100 years? of the people who were in the top 25 industrial companies, there are now only two left. if i look back to 1962, to now, there are 4. that is it. because you have to go to the future, whether you were a business or a society. you have to go to the future. yes, we have a responsibility to transition from the past, but you cannot trade off and well on the past. you have to transition from the past, and you did not solve the
problem by creating a housing boom and say that it is wonderful. >> one of the real problems we have had in washington the last 30 years is most c.e.o.'s have stopped coming to washington to help with systemic problems. they come to town deal -- to come to town to deal with transactional issues. it is very rare to have two c.e.o.'s, who come to help with these problems, and thank you for your service. [applause] thank you all for coming. thank you, gentlemen. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]