Skip to main content

tv   Press Here  NBC  January 31, 2016 9:00am-9:31am PST

9:00 am
"press:here" is sponsored in part by barracuda network. storage solutions that simplify i.t. city national bank to help northern california businesses grow. this morning the world economic forum warns robots are here to take our jobs. we'll have expert commentary from former california ctop.k. agarwal. and san francisco magazine's senior editor joe es ken kenazi wonders if the nfl will regret giving us the super bowl. and sarah lacy of pando and quentin hardy of "the new york times." this week on "press:here."
9:01 am
good morning, everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. according to a report by the world economic forum many of us are going to be replaced by robots. the study called the future of work says for 5 million of us there may not be a very good future. now, we're familiar with robots in manufacturing, but experts say robots and artificial intelligence are moving into other industries like food service, banking, even law. some good news, while jobs are vanishing, that same report points out that more than half the children entering elementary school today have jobs in industries that don't currently exist. what is the future of work and technology? we turn to the former chief technology officer of the eighth largest economy in the world. p.k. agarwal was cto of california. he's now ceo of northeastern university. quentin hardy of "the new york times" and sarah lacy of pando.
9:02 am
this is something i think we have historically worried about, right? dating back to the steam engine, maybe even earlier, we're going to lose all kinds of jobs to technology. is it possible, though, this time the worry is more legitimate because of the power of artificial intelligence of computers? >> let me explain this by giving an example of how this is playing out in something that's very current in silicon valley, the driverless cars, the autonomous cars. obviously, the drivers would go away. i'm not talking about you and i. i'm talking about people who drive for a profession. >> cab drivers. >> truck drivers. you add all these up, believe it or not, there are 5 million people in the united states that drive as their occupation. so over the next 10 to 15 on the horizon, we fully expect these 5 million jobs to disappear. but the good news is on the on the other hand the development, the software, the production of
9:03 am
driverless cars would create a lot of job, too. by the way, that's ground zero for silicon valley. that's where it's all happening. on one hand you have a lot of the lower skill jobs disappearing, but on the other hand we have these high wage, high knowledge type jobs that are happening. >> it's easier to imagine what we're losing compared to what we're gaining. i can identify immediately a bus driver, truck driver, taxi car driver. what i can't identify is what gets replaced because that i have to imagine. >> right. does that person want to do that job? i think part of what's so scary about this is these are real human beings. they're not robots that we're reprogramming to do another job. but when you bring up driveless cars, that's a really interesting example because that to me is the one category that's been overhyped. i nor the life of me don't understand why uber and lyft keep saying we're going to go to fully self-driving cars innen amazing arctic nal the "times"
9:04 am
last week that says that no true humanless cars. to me that's the one area we've overhyped. >> i think they're saying these scary things in order to ensure that they can get guarantees about the current labor conditions and keep humans. it scares the city into thinking, oh, god, we have to allow these guys in and we'll have humans. a negotiating tactic to say -- >> maybe with the city but not with the drivers. >> it scares people -- >> but back to your question about, scott, about how much is the hype and how much is real, well, it's going to happen. so the challenge for leadership and education quite frankly is simply that we're going to have a group of people who are getting displaced. the jobs are going to disappear. what the transition looks like, nobody knows, might take ten years, 20 years. the challenge for leadership is, in my opinion, is we have to reskill these people, upskill
9:05 am
them from low value jobs to high value jobs. and what often gets overlooked in these disruptions is that you have these jobs, he's high paid jobs, the silicon valley jobs that need to be clear and the pipeline needs to be built and we need more and more people in that area. >> there are bizarre jobs that have been created. selling things on ebay is a job for many people. being a videographer. >> even being an uber driver. >> robots don't sort of fall out of the sky incredibly competent. they will start out doing basic and primitive stuff. that the people doing that, they may not like those jobs in first place and they can reskill other things that are slightly more difficult and robots can't do. a much bigger worry is what's going to happen in china, where people are doing repetitive work. >> if you think we have a problem and going to lose 5 million, they'll lose 50. >> the government's biggest
9:06 am
concern is employment. have you ever been in a building at night in china there are 15 people waxing a floor and nobody there. >> let's talk the united states for a moment. here's the great hope. this data might startle you but there's a government foundation of entrepreneurship and they've been studying this issue of job creation for the last 30 years. interesting, the job creation by companies that are over five years old, over the 30-year horizon, net zero. all of the job growth in the united states is by companies that are less than five years old. this plays for silicon valley so well and for california. this is something at northeastern we're trying to promote, that we need to create individuals, the innovation dpoent to it, creativity. >> what do you see the students taking, what should they be taking and what do you see a high demand for that right now is kind of hard for you to create? do you have enough guys that can even teach data science, for example?
9:07 am
>> i think the teaching part, part of what we're doing is we're looking at creating the kind of new professionals who are highly, highly industrialized, hit the job, on the job, hit the ground running. we have 3s,000 corporate partners to make sure we're getting these real world experiences. those are the kind of people we're trying to create that can take on these type of roles in the industry. i'll give you an example how much the gap is. we did a survey a couple of months ago. and silicon valley in the bay area there's 40,000 vacancies for people who are required to have a masters in computer science. a third of the production in the region is about 400 people. this is a global -- >> housing prices so high. all those people moving in. >> i want to be cautious about the way i phrase this, but are there people whose jobs are going to be replaced who work in blue collar industries, who are just not going to be able to
9:08 am
make that transition? we know it's important that we get them new job skills, et cetera, but is there a reason maybe they were in a certain set of jobs, whether that's repetitive manufacturing or some other job, because they were not ready for the kind of jobs that we in america will need them to do? >> well, if you look at the history, economic history of the previous industrial revolution, about a third of them don't make the transition. they're too old, they're too fixed in their minds, but the other two-thirds make it. this is perfect for business, government, academia ta come together and provide those tools and reskill and upscale and those type of things. >> i think we need to think long and hard silicon valley about what these jobs creating are. it was talking about creating a lot of knowledge worker job. what seduced a lot of politicians initially about the sharing economy and the gig economy was that you were giving
9:09 am
jobs that everyone could do and you were helping people become entrepreneurs. well, if you're driving for uber and they're telng you you can only make 30 cents a mile and when you can drive and when you can't, you're not an entrepreneur. you're an employee who doesn't have the benefits of being an employee. i did an interview with alfred len from sequoia. he noted we've done a good job in aggregate in creating jobs and opportunity but not equally across this country. i think that stat from the kaufman foundation blinds us to the fact that there's a lot of people who, for a long time, couldn't participate, who now can participate but it's kind of a lie about how we say they're participating. >> par tis pate for now. >> there is the kind of people who are maybe not comfortable but willing to learn new skills, willing to upscale, willing to be displaced and people who want the status quo and want things to hold. >> we're seeing that in the
9:10 am
political field. >> if you're willing to learn, have capability towards learning, you start getting impatient with the people who just want the status quo and you start getting kind of indignant about it. >> there's no denying the fact that this is a messy business. but silicon valley, the golden state of california, our future lies in to creating those kind of jobs that are highly skilled, ph.d.s, master degrees, disciplines. that's where the future of the state lies. >> i realize as cto of california, you were in charge of keeping the trains running on time more than you were in setting policy. but goodness you spent plenty of time in sacramentsacramento. what would you do? driverless cars, education, you're in charge, p.k., for just a short time. and you drive the golden state and our technology policy, what would you do immediately? >> i go back to the same thing. the single-biggest challenge for
9:11 am
government and quite frankly in partnership with industry is to look at the disruptions that are already happening. we don't have to wait for the driverless cars. there's plenty of people who feel like life is passing them by. to provide programs and means for upscaling and reskilling these people. and let me say this. that in the bay area, i mean, the local leadership is very much in tune with this and there are a lot of companies like intel. and may or sam liccardo is attune to these kind of things. that's where we come in with the academic programs. >> part of what you're running is a high-end vocational school. these are very specific skills and people keep going to school and they reskill. could somebody build a vocational skill in a are into neighborhood and just say if you show up here, you will graduate, you'll have a job at 18 and we'll apprentice you? >> some of this stuff is happening. what we're doing to promote
9:12 am
exactly what you're talking about is things like -- for example, big data and making sense out of this. it's a fantastic problem to solve. we have a boot camp where we take people who are outside of the business and bring them into this thing. so there's a lot of smart solutions to deal with these kind of issues. >> p.k. agarwal is the ceo of northeastern university. thank you for being here this morning. i'm at san francisco, the hope of the super-owl.
9:13 am
9:14 am
welcome back to "press:here." we actually cover a surprising amount of sports on this show because sports is a business. we had thehood of the 49ers, the warriors and the giants as our guests. but the bay area really kind of has an uneasy relationship with sports. we'll watch with a certain amount of curiosity how the bay area will react in the coming weeks to the hosting of the super bowl. the 50 across from the painted ladies after all was defaced to say we are home of the superb owl. and there have been promises of protests as well. perhaps enough to interfere with people getting to the game. joe eskenazi is here, editor at san francisco magazine. he poses an interesting question, will the nfl regret bringing the super bowl to san francisco. and i'm going to include you guys in this question when i ask is this why we can't have nice
9:15 am
things? >> being in san francisco? >> i mean, it seems, joe, as if new orleans didn't have time -- problems hosting the super bowl ten separate times. and yet somehow there's a bit of a pushback in san francisco over all of this. >> well, vince lombardi famously said plan your work and work your plan. and i don't think that's happening in san francisco. even the very elemental questions such as who negotiated this deal are being flatly not answered by the mayor's office. the mayor's office -- >> now that this deal is seeming so stinky? >> you know, i'm not good to say it's so stinky but there's an aroma around it that isn't very good. >> by the deal, you mean the super bowl city. the activities and shutting down the streets and whatnot, that part of it. >> absolutely. i think the major objection for people who are fiscal hawks in san francisco is that san francisco is not requiring
9:16 am
itself to be paid back for the use of its employees to police super bowl city, for the diversions to muni and -- >> and how much money are we talking about here? >> well, et gets bigger every time. you know? it's like the amazing -- >> give me a number. >> right now i'd say it's upwards of $5 million. >> and the number is never smaller after the event. >> what's the thing the nfl isn't going to like about being given 5 million? >> i'm not endorsing this, but this would be very san franciscoen of us to stage protests that interfere. >> there's that other thing, it's not actually being held in san francisco. >> right. you could argue that san francisco is getting all the brand uplift without actually having to host the event. >> well, you know, yes, but the people who are hosting the event are being remunerated for their costs. that said, it's still a different type of stinky deal
9:17 am
because they're giving the nfl huge tax breaks. they're not collecting the 10% surcharge on the tickets that would normally go to pay down the debt of the stadium they're having this in. and 10% of a super bowl ticket is a lot of money. >> to delve into city politics, santa clara as part of its measure j had this we are not -- we will get paid back by the nfl. they had a legal basis for negotiating the deal that santa clara where the actual game will be held, they had a legal basis. san francisco could have made that deal. i mean, they could have asked to are that deal. >> is it being inept or is it this weird thing where san francisco wants to act like it's not very impressed by something like the super bowl but always kind of feels like a little bit of a smaller backwater major city and at the end of the day is starstruck. every day i see tech moguls who think they're amazing and then bono walks in the room and they turn into little girls. there's all this eye rolling about the super bowl but really a lot of people in san francisco are kind of excited at it being
9:18 am
here. >> i would say that among the people who will be at the vip parties and people and persons or nonpersons who negotiated this deal, they are very excited. and in just the same way that san francisco is falling all over itself to be the backdrop of a woody allen movie, we were very excited -- you know, very excited to we the locus of everyone's view here. and that said, we did not use our leverage. >> what i'm getting is we like to think we're baghdad by the bay but we're really the patsies by the pacific. >> which is strange because we're easily the coolest city west of the mississippi. right? >> apparently you're paying for the privilege. >> and yes, somehow, i don't know that we somehow feel as we if we can't stand up to the nfl. >> if san francisco wasn't so cool a city, it would have to be governed better. >> isn't that great? sf weekly cover a couple years ago basically saying san francisco is the worst managed city in america. >> which i wrote, thank you. >> did you?
9:19 am
that's one of my favorite pieces of local -- >> and benjamin wax who is a genius. >> i quote that all the time. >> that's kind of you. we don't know how bad the deal is but we're leaving money on the table. it's kind of a perverse logic to say we'll make the money back so you don't have to worry about the 5 million, 7 million, $9 million. that's like, oh, i sold my house for $500,000. it's okay, i left $25,000 in the closet. i don't care. i just got $500,000. i would say why did you do that? that's unnecessary. no matter how much you make you are not making as much as you could have. >> can we talk about the homeless issue? >> absolutely. >> one of the fascinating things about this is i live in the mission. and we were talking about passing the law where during business hours a homeless person couldn't be blocking the entrance of a restaurant. there were mattresses burning in the street in the mission, the protests were so great. whether you agree or not, san francisco has always been so far to the left on what you can do
9:20 am
around making life better for those of us not homeless at the expense of the homeless. now suddenly when the super bowl comes to town, the homeless have all been relocated into basically on division street. >> pushed out of super bowl city. >> i was walking home from a sfraunt to my house, i pass 15, 20. on that walk, none. it was like i was on the set of a movie. meantime, i heard a lot of their possessions were sent to storage units during this several week period. people in san francisco criticize china of doing stuff like this during the olympics. why have we so accepted this? >> i think a lot of the people who protested the sit lie law even five years ago have been priced out of san francisco. san francisco has priced out its protesters. we have to bus people in to protest. people who block the bay bridge, they may be from san francisco but a few are able to make it there anymore. and that's a tragedy in its own way. agree with them or not, one of their beefs was the cost of living in san francisco. so answer your question, this
9:21 am
was not a legislative issue. in the same way that the mayor flatly refused a very straight question from supervisor peskin on tuesday who negotiated this deal and he went off on a five-minute long lecture in which he was actually gonged twice without answering that question, this movement of the homeless people was not legislated and certainly wasn't put before the voters. if they are officially being shunted out of public view, it's being done more shuttly than that. oftentimes -- and i'm not apologizing for anybody here. oftentimes homeless people don't need to be grabbed by the scruff of the neck and moved out. they can see that action and they move on their own. >> we've got 50 years of super bowls at this point, 30 have been crazy, vulgar stupendous money national worldwide spectacle. why do we want this deal, though? and why were we so bad at this? >> i talked to a lot of economists who study this. and the people who are putting on super bowl say nobody refuses a second super bowl. but the people who might think to are never asked.
9:22 am
this is something where this particular deal has been so opaque that those of us who would raise questions, even those in government who would raise government -- >> what are the questions you most want answered? >> who's paying for it. >> you answered quickly. but who is paying for this? >> and why should we pay for this? and everyone has a good time, but you have a good time, then you settle the bill and then you leave. >> joe escan as we with san francisco magazine. thanks for being with us.
9:23 am
9:24 am
welcome back to "press:here." i have two tech experts with me. we were discussing during the commercial what we might talk about. jack dorsey, ever so sorry that it's going to be you. jack has been a guest on this show. he's ceo of twitter. he's ceo of square. and a lot in the investment community thinks he needs to choose one. >> right. this was the biggest -- there's such a cult of the founder. when doctor was even a possibility that he could replace dick costello. everyone lines up and goods on cnbc and says that's what needs to happen. the investment community said we need a full-time ceo, someone trying to turn twitter around. the board ignored it. and lo and behold the stock is down. this is a man who for all the rhetoric, he's the next steve jobs and he's vl talented, he's never led a public company before. these trying to lead two, slumping stocks, troubled in a
9:25 am
horrible market. anything he says -- >> what's so great about founders? cisco got rid of the founders and they took the money, they ran, they were happy, company took off. ebay, made a lot of money under professional management ebay took off. >> we forget, they were both fired for very good reasons at twitter. twitter would not have gotten to an ipo without a professional manager. you can nitpick how good or bad dick costello was -- >> how much was dorsey the founder anyway? he was the guy present at creation. sort of like the head of yahoo! right now. they're close to it. but they're not founders. they haven't built a business. they got there early on. >> you do think what made dorsey into this legend of innovation, which we can debate whether or not he deserves, was the second act with square. >> great, go to square, be that thing. >> square is not even consumer facing business. their iphone app pretty much failed.
9:26 am
square is a small businesses software company that's based on execution. he's even less suited to be running square than he is to be doing twitter. >> i was going to ask you that. you're the chairwoman of both, which one do you keep him at? >> twitter. you rip and replace him now and he loses even more. there's no one going to work there. >> but they've lost a great number of top executives. >> five top executives. they spun the story through anonymous sources that it was a shake-up and lo and behold, one gets another job. it really wasn't the case. that's part of the issue with twitter. it's this dysfunctional back-biting -- >> oh, my god. >> i didn't know there was that much money in the world. >> facebook and google are doing two things that i think are exciting is neither of the founder's ceos are more ekts sited about their side projects than they are about the other once. >> what do you mean -- no,
9:27 am
everything at facebook at this point returns back to facebook. their a.i. stuff points to facebook in the future. i wrote a story this week about what they're doing in video. and it's a way of paying for a kind of back end thattent wally will allow vr. >> you think that the goggles all go back to me looking at my newspaper? >> i think the goggles end up being a kind of communications device, more so presence and meeting that's social and advertisers love learning about you and you love communicating this way so not now but is five years a long time? is ten years a long time? >> not for facebook. if you look at the history of consumer internet companies that went public and are the darlings of the market, they last four years then something catastrophic happens and someone else takes on the mantle. the only two companies to break that trend are google and facebook. there's a lot of reasons why. >> microsoft -- >> that wasn't a consumer internet company. i'm talking about -- >> no, we got to pause there. >> i'm going to finish.
9:28 am
>> she is going to finish. >> they made acquisitions work both big and small which no one else has consistently done. >> sarah lacy of pando, quentin hardy. back in a minute.
9:29 am
that's our show for this week. my thanks to my guests and thank you for making us part of your sunday morning. "press:here" is sponsored in part by barracuda network. cloud connected security and storage solutions that simplify ip. city national bank providing loans and lines of credit to help northern california businesses grow.
9:30 am
damian trujillo: hello, and welcome to "comunidad del valle." i'm damian trujillo, and today, suenatron, their music is on our show. plus gang violence, how to stop it on your "comunidad del valle." male announcer: nbc bay area presents "comunidad del valle" with damian trujillo. damian: we begin today with a familiar face on "comunidad del valle." you all know pastor sonny lara. he's been fighting gang violence for decades here. and he brought with him anthony sanchez, who has a special message for all of our viewers. welcome to the show. sonny lara: thank you, damian, for having us. damian: tell us where we're at now, pastor sonny. let's get right to it because, i mean, when i'm out doing the news and reporting, you know, there's still--the violence is still there. sonny: yeah, the violence is still there, but right now, because of firehouse, we're able to go fishing and fish a lot of them out of that, and give them an opportunity. it's like when they're in gangs, "where's this place


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on