Latest news with #G.E.
Time Magazine
22-07-2025
- Business
- Time Magazine
The Socialist Mayor Who Came 100 Years Before Zohran Mamdani
A young charismatic socialist politician runs for mayor in New York on a platform of lowering costs and improving quality of life for its lower classes. He challenges the corruption of the incumbent administration, eschews the mainstream media, and mobilizes voters alienated by both the Republican and Democratic establishment. He promises affordable transit and city-run groceries, scoring a shocking victory and becoming a national icon. That might sound like what has played out in New York City over the last month, as Zohran Mamdani has become a political sensation since winning the Democratic mayoral primary. But it's actually the story of what happened in Schenectady in 1911, when voters elected George Lunn mayor, a post he'd go on to hold for four terms. Over a century divides these two political stories. Yet, the history of Lunn's career offers pointers for how Democratic Socialist Mamdani can harness his political skills and newfound celebrity to make sustainable change, overcome attacks from the political opposition, and have a long, successful career. In 1911, Schenectady was one of the fastest growing cities in the U.S.; from 1900 to 1910, its population had increased nearly 130%, from 31,682 to 72,826. Like so many cities across the northeast and Midwest, this boom stemmed from rapid industrialization, most especially the growth of General Electric. G.E.'s hunger for labor, along with the needs of the American Locomotive Company, the city's other main employer, drew thousands to Schenectady, most notably and visibly working-class immigrants from Italy and Poland. Schenectady was a bustling, vibrant small city, but it was also bursting at the seams—the city's growth had outpaced its housing stock, its school system, its streets and sewers, and its 19th century administrative structure. The city's working-class residents found it difficult to afford transportation on streetcars and lived in crowded and unhealthy neighborhoods with no access to parks or playgrounds. Amid the rapid growth, politically connected businessmen couldn't resist the temptation to line the pockets of local politicians to ensure that they would profit from public contracts for building roads and schools. Read More: Zohran Mamdani's Upset Is a Seismic Moment for the Left Enter Lunn, a young Protestant minister who grew up in Iowa and Nebraska where he was imbued with a sympathy for the common people from the populist teachings of William Jennings Bryan. Lunn traveled east to do graduate work in economics and theology and was called to the elite First Reformed Church in Schenectady in 1904. The dynamic and popular preacher discomfited many in his parish with his increasingly pointed critiques of inequities and corruption in the city. In 1909, he resigned, and started his own working-class congregation and weekly newspaper—and increasingly found an affinity with the city's small but vocal Socialist Party. Socialism was on the march, it seemed. Hundreds of party members had been elected to city and state offices across the country, and a Socialist administration had just started running Milwaukee. While a critique of the capitalist system infused their messaging, these Socialists also aimed to provide public services and reduce the cost of living for working-class urban Americans. Their success inspired Lunn. In 1911, he declared himself the Socialist candidate for Mayor, with an ambitious platform. Lunn promised to provide low-cost necessities—groceries, coal, and ice for the pre-electric era iceboxes—by starting city-run businesses to compete with private merchants who exploited their poor customers. Additionally, he pledged to run an efficient, professional, and honest government in contrast to the corruption rife in both the Democratic and Republican parties in Schenectady City and County. In a four-way race (Democratic, Republican, Progressive, and Socialist), Lunn prevailed, bringing with him a Socialist majority on the City Council. One of his working-class supporters told a reporter, 'People got mighty sick of voting for Republicans and Democrats when it was a heads I win, tails you lose proposition.' This voter remarked that people wondered why the gap 'between the pay envelope and the grocer's and butcher's bills' was getting so tight. Lunn's message was attractive because he 'had a way of kind of harnessing words to ideas that had been running around loose in a lot of folks' minds.' Lunn, in his campaign, promised to 'go on, step by step… and demonstrate that we are fit to rule.' And so he did. The most 'socialist' parts of the new mayor's agenda never came to full fruition; local businesses challenged the city-run ice and grocery stores he launched and courts found them to be illegal. The city-run ice store shut down, while the grocery store became a co-op and then collapsed. Yet, undaunted, Lunn's 'sewer socialism' succeeded in other ways. After a court fight, the city-run coal dealership he created was reorganized as a quasi-private enterprise. It sold coal below the cost charged by local dealers and, in doing so, may have forced them to lower their prices. Among Lunn's other achievements, the city built a more robust public health system that led to a decrease in infant mortality, expanded the school system and provided free textbooks for students, created a Municipal Employment Bureau to undercut the exploitation of recent immigrants by private employment agents, and constructed a network of city parks that persists to this day. Lunn also rid the city of the 850 privies still fouling its soil and the Mohawk River by completing a long-stalled sewer system. Residents who opposed the extension had obtained an injunction to prevent the city from cutting down a tree in the way of excavation. Lunn went out with an axe, cut it down himself, paid a fine, and the pipe went in. Despite his socialist ideology, Lunn also won praise from business interests, including the management of G.E., for his emphasis on administrative efficiency. He reorganized city government, implemented a transparent bidding process for city contracts, and appointed a number of non-Socialists to important administrative posts. Even though economics were his focus, Lunn didn't shy away from the culture war issues of the day. He fervently supported women's suffrage, which at the time had had a losing track record in New York State. Read More: How Zohran Mamdani Plans to Fix New York City's Housing Crisis Despite his robust platform, however, Lunn's flavor of socialism disappointed his more radical colleagues, including a young Walter Lippmann. Before becoming one of the preeminent political commentators of the mid-20th century, Lippmann was a hair-on-fire Socialist, who came as a young Harvard grad to work as Lunn's personal secretary. He left after four months, disappointed with the decidedly non-radical flavor of the mayor's socialism: 'I have often thought of the slashing articles the Socialists in Schenectady would write about the present administration if they weren't responsible for the administration,' he griped. Lunn's moderation wasn't enough to placate Schenectady's more conservative political powers either. The other three parties formed a fusion ticket in 1913 to try to beat Lunn. They succeeded, in part because the mayor was distracted by affairs beyond Schenectady—most especially his arrest at a rally for strikers affiliated with the radical International Workers of the World union in nearby Little Falls. But the opposition couldn't wipe out Lunn's charisma or his accomplishments in improving the quality of life in the city through 'good' government. That enabled Lunn to return to the mayor's office again in 1915. But he was soon ejected from the local Socialist Party for refusing to allow the Party to dictate appointments to city jobs. Lunn then rebranded himself as a progressive Democrat. He went on to serve a term in Congress, two more terms as Mayor, a stint as Lieutenant Governor under Al Smith, and then, finally, 17 years as the head of New York State's Public Service Commission. He retired in 1942. What lessons can Mamdani learn from Lunn's successes and failures should he win the general election campaign in New York City? He's hoping to run a vastly larger and more complex political, economic, and social entity than the Schenectady that Lunn led. Even so, Lunn's career makes clear the importance of making a tangible difference in residents' lives. Lunn's brand of reform disrupted the corrupt and complacent, empowered talent without regard to political allegiance, and relentlessly focused on the common good of his constituents. His track record in Schenectady produced visible, tangible achievements, and even his failures, such as the city-run ice business, nonetheless signaled where Lunn's values lay in ways that resonated with working class voters. Like Lunn, Mamdani will undoubtedly come under attack from the opposition, but if he can harness his considerable charisma and communication skills to make people's lives better, he too can overcome them and leave a lasting mark. Andrew Morris is professor and chair of the Department of History at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump and Congress Target 'Efficiency' Rules That Hobble Home Appliances
Taking up space in my kitchen is a G.E. dishwasher. We rarely use it because, frankly, it sucks. Too often, dishes must be rewashed after a cycle long enough that it might scrub the glaze from the ceramic, obviating the point of having an appliance dedicated to that task. My complaint isn't isolated; Americans have complained for years that appliances which once saved time and energy now produce frustration—largely because of regulations that hobble their ability to function. To their credit, the Trump administration and members of Congress are rolling back red tape and liberating appliances. The result should be expanded choices in labor saving devices that do what we want and do so more affordably. "Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a memorandum to eliminate restrictive water pressure and efficiency rules that make household appliances less effective and more expensive," the White House announced May 9. The order directs the Secretary of Energy to "review and rescind—or revert to the minimum standards required by statute—rules that limit water use in showerheads, faucets, dishwashers, toilets, urinals, and washing machines," to clarify "the scope of federal preemption of state rules for water use" in appliances, and to "pause enforcement [of any] rules mentioned in the memorandum until they are rescinded or revised." It also directs the Secretary of Energy to work with Congress to repeal intrusive laws that dictate water usage and efficiency standards to Americans. This recent regulatory move follows an earlier action addressing deregulation of showerheads. It's no secret the federal government has been trying to make our household appliances greener for many years and that, despite innovation by manufacturers, regulatory intervention has had an unfortunate effect on performance. "Why do today's dishwashers typically take more than 2 hours to run through a normal cycle when less than a hour was common in the past?" George Mason University economics professor Alex Tabarrok wrote in January of 2024. "The reason is absurd energy and water 'conservation' rules. These rules, imposed on dish and clothes washers, have made these products perform worse than in the past, cleaning less well or much more slowly." Supporting his point that washers have become less effective, Tabarrok cited a 2007 article from Consumer Reports that noted: Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore…. As of January, the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer. Writing in 2019 for the American Institute of Economic Research, Jeffrey Tucker added: "Dishwashers used to wash all the dishes in under one hour. Now they take two hours, three hours, and four hours, and still don't get the dishes clean…. All of this is directly due to government regulations." Modern appliances attempt to make up for restrictions on water use by stretching out the cleaning time, but experience in the kitchen suggests that's not doing the job. Interestingly, Tabarrok's January 2024 post celebrated a Fifth Circuit court ruling against efforts by the Biden administration to undo deregulatory actions Trump took during his first term to expand choice in appliances. While Biden was unable to fully reregulate through executive action what his predecessor had deregulated that way, a lot of red tape remained in place, especially rules passed by Congress. That means Trump's memorandum directing executive agencies to back off "efficiency" rules could run up against limits established by statutory law and could again be challenged through actions by his successors—that is, if it was unaccompanied by matching legislation. Fortunately, Congress sent to the White House, and Trump signed, laws repealing Biden administration's energy conservation standards for commercial refrigerators and freezers, restrictions on gas-fired tankless water heaters, and an energy conservation program for appliances. In terms of freeing the market from government interference, these legislative changes come closer to permanence than presidential directives to executive agencies can by themselves. "From increasing the costs of refrigeration equipment used by small businesses to regulating reporting requirements for appliance manufacturers to banning gas-fired water heaters, the Biden-Harris Administration attempted to impose a far-left agenda that put Green New Deal-style policies ahead of the American people," commented Rep. Brett Guthrie (R–Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, upon the signing of the bills into law. Responding specifically to Trump's executive action, Devin Watkins, attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), observed: "Federal limits on water and energy use have made appliances slower and less effective, frustrating consumers and limiting their choices. The water restrictions on dishwashers and clothes washers were found to violate the law by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, yet the Biden administration imposed them anyway. President Trump's new executive order marks a return to consumer choice—allowing Americans to purchase appliances that are faster, more effective, and better suited to their needs." CEI has done a lot of heavy lifting over the years to fight rules and laws that limit choices in appliances, showerheads (another Trump concern), and light bulbs. The regulatory change during Trump's first term that expanded options for faster dishwasher's was initiated by a petition submitted by the organization, which Watkins co-wrote. CEI emphasizes that government intervention doesn't only reduce the range of options available to consumers even as it harms performance, it also raises costs so that we often end up paying more money for lousier products. So, it's encouraging to see members of Congress and the Trump administration rolling back "efficiency" rules that render many appliances largely ineffective. A combination of legislation and executive action is exactly what's needed to trim back a federal government that has intruded too far into our choices and our homes. It's too late to save my dishwasher. But I hold out hope that I'll eventually replace that waste of space with a device that actually washes dishes. The post Trump and Congress Target 'Efficiency' Rules That Hobble Home Appliances appeared first on
New York Times
22-02-2025
- Business
- New York Times
A Tale of Two Cost-Cutters
A tale of the cost-cutting tape There's no disputing that Elon Musk is one of the leading businessmen of our era. He has a net worth of around $400 billion these days and leads prominent businesses including Tesla, SpaceX, X, Neuralink and xAI. And he has become known for moving fast, cutting costs and pushing the workers who remain beyond what they thought possible. In many ways, that recalls a previous titan of industry, Jack Welch, who 25 years ago was considered the greatest businessman of his generation. It raises an intriguing question: Is Musk as influential a business leader as the former General Electric chief? Are the two men even comparable? By some lights, the two aren't remotely the same. Welch was no entrepreneur but instead was the ultimate corporate chameleon, the son of a train conductor who started his career in G.E.'s plastics division and spent his whole career at the conglomerate. Musk, on the other hand, hailed from a prominent South African family, before emigrating to Canada and then to the United States as a serial entrepreneur. And while the two were both politically conservative, Welch was more of a country-club Republican, partial to golf and no fan — at least earlier on — of Donald Trump. While a savvy political operator, Welch was unlikely to have decamped to Mar-a-Lago to personally and intensely cozy up to the president-elect, as Musk did. (In 2016, Welch withdrew his support for Trump as the Republican presidential nominee, writing on social media, 'Unfortunately, wrong messenger…Party must change nominee now.') But the two shared a common business philosophy: Cut as much fat as possible. Welch believed G.E. had become too bureaucratic and bloated. He slashed billions of dollars in costs, and prided himself on weeding out employees who just weren't making it. He became an apostle of the Six Sigma approach, inspiring other C.E.O.s. Corporate profits — and G.E.'s stock price — exploded under his watch. That won Welch acclaim from investors and surviving employees. Consider this: When he became G.E.'s chief in 1981, its market value was $12 billion. At his departure, right before Sept. 11, 2001, that had grown to some $650 billion, making the conglomerate the world's most valuable company by many stretches. G.E. became known as an incubator of top managerial talent, with alumni becoming C.E.O.s of many Fortune 500 companies. But it also made Welch a polarizing figure: He became known in many circles as 'Neutron Jack,' a moniker he despised. Musk essentially took Welch's playbook into overdrive. The social network now known as X operates with just 25 percent of the work force it had when he acquired it in 2022. Tales of his relentless cost-cutting at Tesla and SpaceX are the stuff of biographies, and they can now be seen at work in the Trump administration. And Musk has made no apologies for his approach, acknowledging that he has had to sometimes rehire workers in crucial roles. That approach has certainly cost Musk some popularity among much of the general public recently, and he still faces lawsuits from aggrieved former employees of X. But investors have snapped up debt in X at par, seemingly hopeful that the company's prospects are on the mend. And he has seemingly inspired counterparts at Meta, Google, Amazon and beyond to rethink how to get by with less — much less. At Meta, Mark Zuckerberg has openly spoken about cutting 'low performers'; shares in the parent company of Instagram and Facebook have increased nearly 50 percent in the past year, putting its market value at nearly $2 trillion. Similar conversations are going on throughout Hollywood and on Wall Street. Other moves by Musk appear to be gaining adherents in corporate America. His dispute with the Delaware Court of Chancery over a $50 billion pay package helped drive the tech mogul to reincorporate Tesla and SpaceX in Texas, a move that other companies are now considering, in a development that is causing consternation within the First State. (By contrast, Welch moved G.E.'s headquarters to Fairfield County, Conn., from Manhattan, for space and a more bucolic vibe rather than for tax or legal reasons. Few other corporate titans followed suit.) Despite pockets of criticism, Welch was seen as a more conventional business celebrity. His 2001 memoir, 'Straight From the Gut,' was a runaway best seller and a 'lessons learned' manual for would-be C.E.O.s, and Sacred Heart University in Fairfield still features the Jack Welch College of Business and Technology (located, ironically, in the old G.E. headquarters). On the other hand, Musk is also perhaps the most famous business executive in years — famous enough to get a cameo in a Marvel blockbuster and to inspire others to get his face as a tattoo — with a fandom that makes his X account one of the most powerful bully pulpits in the world. And his role — however nebulous — in overseeing the so-called Department of Government Efficiency is rewriting and drastically downsizing the scope of the federal government. Trump himself has consistently endorsed the effort, to the point of floating the idea of stimulus checks nominally paid for by Musk's efforts. While Welch nominally had checks on how far he could go — including G.E.'s directors and his third wife, Suzy — Musk's enormous wealth and influence have made it unclear who could hold him accountable, including judges and his companies' boards. At this point, is it fair to ask whether Musk's particular brand of cost-cutting and norm-breaking will be more influential? President Trump could impose tariffs on countries that tax U.S. tech giants. The White House is reportedly planning a memo directing federal agencies to look for ways to levy countries that impose a so-called digital services tax on tech businesses like Meta and Google. Many of these countries are part of the European Union. The move potentially creates yet another front in Trump's brewing global trade war — or it's just another bargaining chip. U.S. tech giants have long complained about the services tax, and Trump himself criticized it during his first term. Jeff Bezos finally got his James Bond. When Amazon paid $8.5 billion for MGM Studios the deal was really a high-priced bet on just one property: James Bond. But Amazon execs fought bitterly with the Broccoli family, which had creative control, and the two sides couldn't come to terms on how to make the next film. (The MGM deal gave Amazon only distribution rights.) But this week, the family agreed to give the tech giant total control in a deal that is likely to be worth a hefty sum. It's yet another chapter in the tech-takes-over-Hollywood saga and it's a big one. Look out for more Bond films and spinoffs. MacKenzie Scott's unconventional charitable giving got high marks. The billionaire philanthropist's unusual approach — doling out huge grants with few restrictions — helped recipient organizations flourish with few downsides, according to a new study by the Center for Effective Philanthropy. The report, based on a survey of 813 grantees and 243 foundation leaders, was a validation of a philanthropic blitz that has given out $19.2 billion so far. The China-Europe paradox China and Europe are high up on President Trump's trade-war hit list. But with each passing day, investors appear largely unfazed by the threat of a new round of U.S. tariffs on these regions. Take Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index, home to the tech giant Alibaba and the electric car maker BYD. It gained 4 percent yesterday and has soared more than 17 percent this year. In Europe, the Stoxx Europe 600 also finished the week on a high note, and it is up more than 9 percent since the start of the year. Both benchmark exchanges are leaving the S&P 500 in the dust this year. What gives? For starters, investors appear to be betting that the president's threats of tariffs are more bark than bite. 'I think the narrative around the Trump administration, and the impact of tariffs is a kind of realization that it's maybe not as bleak as some would have thought earlier on, in the early days of the administration,' Michael Hunstad, chief investment officer of global equities at Northern Trust Asset Management, told DealBook. By no means has Trump rescinded the idea of tariffs. They could be announced in early April, he has said, though he has also signaled an openness to a wider trade deal with China. The lack of clarity may have given investors enough reason to jump into what's viewed as relatively cheap European and Chinese stocks. That's caught some investment pros off guard. A.I. euphoria is another factor, at least in China. DeepSeek, the buzzy new chatbot rival to OpenAI's ChatGPT, has reignited investors' excitement for Chinese tech stocks in a big way. Ryan Cohen, the so-called king of meme-stock investing, reportedly made a killing after piling into Alibaba, a company that's angling for a piece of the Chinese A.I. market. Hunstad isn't a big believer in the long term prospects for either the European or Chinese rally. That said, he has no special read on what the Trump administration will do next about tariffs. Instead, the stock surges appear to be little more than a fairly common market occurrence: that 'small amounts of good news can have big price reactions,' he said. That leaves the question: Is bad news on the way? — Bernhard Warner
