 |
|
|
|||||
For a generation, the smartest people I knew dreamed of moving to America. They took uninspiring jobs, learned to wait through endless paperwork, and believed that one visa stamp could change their lives. That belief built an empire of talent that powered some of the worlds most iconic companies. And now, that same empire is dying, or at the very least, dreaming of moving elsewhere. Talent is now voting with its feet. As someone born in the USSR, a few years before its collapse, who grew up in Kazakhstan and Russia and later lived in several different countries, I remember friends who spent five or six years working for EPAM, an outsourcing firm that became a bridge to something better. EPAMs real perk wasnt salary or prestige. What drew people to it was the promise of relocation. If you endured the dull projects long enough, youd earn your way to a U.S. office. That quiet deal between ambition and patience fueled a whole ecosystem. People didnt work for EPAM. They worked for the dream of getting out. The same pattern was evident elsewhere. From Warsaw, Poland to Bangalore, India young engineers took mediocre jobs for one simple reason: making it to the United States. If you could make it there, your life would change. And if you were lucky, you could even stay forever. For decades, this desire was Americas greatest competitive advantage. I moved to the U.S. in 2015 with my first startup. Our goal was to use the U.S. as a launchpad for global expansion. At the time, the prevailing view was that a companys HQ had to be in the United States. You would relocate your key employees there (highest salaries, best talent, and, for the U.S., the highest taxes) from your offices around the world. And the employees wanted this too, because it represented the American Dream. That dream doesnt work anymore. The price of the American dream Today, Im witnessing with horror how the current administration is aiming to charge up to $100,000 for new petitions for H-1B visas. Consider that Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Sundar Pichai of Google, Eric Yuan of Zoom, and even Elon Musk of X and SpaceX were at some point on an H-1B. These rising figures will make it prohibitive for many startups to hire global talent. And even for those who manage to get through the system, the path keeps getting narrower. The waiting lists for permanent residency stretch on for years, and there are no guarantees anymore. I know brilliant graduates from India who studied at Harvard and work for peanuts just to keep a sponsor. They call it the treadmill. When the visa expires, so does the dream. It used to be that a companys success was measured by how many jobs it created. A visa approved represented a job created, too. That job brought tax revenue, talent, and loyalty to the country. But now, that social contract is broken, and the message to global talent has changed from come build with us to prove you deserve to stay. And the rest of the world has noticed. Where talent is going instead Countries like the UAE are now offering golden visas for founders, investors, and skilled professionals. Saudi Arabia is rolling out special residency programs for tech and creative workers. Singapores Tech.Pass makes it possible to relocate in weeks, not years. And for those who travel, Spain, Norway, and many others now have digital nomad visas. At the top of the list is Chinas new K visa, which is aimed specifically at foreign scientists and innovators. It is a bold signal from Beijing that the country is now open to talented individuals from around the globe. This has had an impact on my circle. Ive watched talented colleagues move to Dubai, UAE; Shenzhen, China; or Singapore and never look back. When you remove barriers, talent flows like water. America used to be the open floodgate. Now, it looks like a dam. The U.K. is making the same mistake The same story is beginning to unfold in the U.K. London could be the global capital of flexible work and innovation, but as the anti-immigration sentiment keeps rising, and the government keeps aiming to appease the hardliners, it could be repeating Americas mistake. Every time a government adds friction to who can stay or build there, the message to founders is simple: Take your innovation somewhere else. Talented individuals who move fast wont wait for paperwork, they will move wherever opportunity is easiest. The real story is an innovation story The irony is that this goes beyond immigration. In reality, it is an innovation story. When you lock out ambitious people, you export your own future. The next unicorns, the next breakthroughs, the next Silicon Valley wont emerge from a single place. Theyll emerge from a network, composed of founders in Dubai; engineers in Tbilisi, Georgia; designers in Bali, Indonesia; and investors on flights between Singapore and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The future of innovation is borderless because the best people already are. Can talented individuals still believe in America? I say this as someone who once believed deeply in the American Dream. It was the North Star for millions of us. You didnt have to be born into privilege because you could earn your way into it. But somewhere along the way, the belief that held it all together cracked. It applies to Americans, too. Many of my U.S.-born friends are now leaving the country in search of the same freedom they once symbolized. The political division has made it even uncomfortable to live there, and as they search for new horizons, they amplify a talent drain that, when we least expect it, could leave the country in dire straits. The truth is that Americas greatest strength was never an economic indicator despite its prominent standing. It was belief. The shared idea that if you worked hard enough, you could belong and have a good life. That belief built companies, cities, and entire industries. But this belief is now breaking down under the pressure of two trends. The U.S. economy itself is going through a difficult period (marked by rising uncertainty, higher taxes, and tariffs) which naturally makes life harder for businesses. At the same time, other countries have begun to compete with the U.S. on very concrete dimensions: the UAE as a place to live for high-net-wrth individuals; China as a source of technological innovation (and a place where businesses can grow by orders of magnitude); Portugal as a competitor to Florida, targeting retirees with savings; Spain as a digital nomad hub for those who value a calmer lifestyle; and the U.K., especially London, as a digital-nomad hub for those who thrive on intensity and movement. The worlds best talent is no longer asking, “how do I get to America?” Instead, theyre looking at all of their optionscountries who are actively trying to woo them and will welcome their contributions with open arms.
Category:
E-Commerce
On the morning of January 24 in downtown Minneapolis, an ICE agent shot and killed protester Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at a local Veterans Affairs hospital. Just 2 miles away, on January 7, another ICE agent had shot and killed Nicole Renee Good, a mother. The deaths mark the first times during Donald Trumps second term that ICE agents have fired in anger and killed publicly verified U.S. citizens. Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have so far said nothing on the matter. X CEO Elon Musk earlier tweeted that Renee Good had almost killed ICE agent Jonathan Ross before Ross shot and killed her on January 7. On the same day as Pretti’s fatal shooting on Saturday, January 24, Apple CEO Tim Cook attended a VIP screening of the new (Amazon-funded) Melania Trump documentary at the White House. Cook was silent about the shooting until Tuesday evening, when he reportedly sent a memo to Apple employees calling for de-escalation and saying that hed talked to Trump about the issue. Its become clear to many that Trumps ICE strategy is at least as much about intimidating citizens of blue cities as it is about removing illegal immigrants. The question is, and has always been: At what point will Trumps authoritarian urges become too much for the tech industry to stomach? UC San Diego political scientist and civil war expert Barbara F. Walter writes that historically, it is the business community that often heads off civil conflict by demanding a more stable and secure business environment. Indeed, tech leaders are credited with having persuaded the Trump administration to cancel plans to move ICE agents into San Francisco last October. AI leaders speak first Among tech leaders, it’s the heads of the leading artificial intelligence companies that have said the most about Minneapolis. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who has been influential among members of Congress and people within the Trump administration, says he spoke to the president about Minneapolis on Monday, following Pretti’s death on Saturday. He wrote a Slack message to employees saying he believes the ICE shootings have gone too far. He didnt make these comments publicly, however. The memo, in which Altman called Trump a very strong leader, was leaked (intentionally or otherwise) to The New York Times, which published it. (OpenAI president and cofounder Greg Brockman has become a major Trump donor as well.) Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei did speak out publicly. We need to defend our own democratic values at home, and some of the things Ive seen during the last few days concern me about that, he said in a Monday night interview with Tom Llamas on NBC Nightly News. He added that Anthropic doesnt currently have contracts with ICE and that the shootings dont make him more enthusiastic about working with the agency. In his Slack memo, Altman spoke directly (if unclearly) to the issue of when OpenAI will, and will not, speak out on social and political issues. The company will not get blown around by changing fashions and will not make a lot of performative statements now about safety or politics, he wrote, but rather will engage with leaders and push for our values, and speak up clearly about it as needed. Amodei and Altman may have spoken out before leaders of bigger tech companies did for any of several reasons. The research culture within AI companies has closer ties to the academic community, so researchers are perhaps more apt to speak out on moral or political issues. The competition for talent in AI is also fierce, so AI company leaders may be quick to respond, fearing the loss of valuable employees. Also, AI companies are eager to project an image of social responsibility, which might reinforce the idea that theyll be careful stewards of the technology theyre developing. They also may have less to lose. OpenAI and Anthropic are not public companies, so they dont have to consider stockholder consensus when their leaders speak out about political issues. They are also smaller than firms like Google or Apple, and they dont rely as much on federal government contracts for revenuenot yet, anyway. Listening to tech workers The backlash against the fatal shootings of Good and Pretti started not with tech executives, but with employees. Several big-name researchers within AI companies denounced the ICE killings on X. Google DeepMind chief scientist Jeff Dean, Anthropic cofounder Chris Olah, former Meta chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, and Microsoft chief scientific officer Eric Horvitz were among those who spoke out. Other researchers, including OpenAIs Michael Schade and theoretical computer scientist Boaz Barak, a member of OpenAIs technical staff, endorsed or shared the tweets. Tech super-investors Reid Hoffman, Vinod Khosla, and Paul Graham also condemned the murders and demanded accountability. (Business Insider has a fuller list.) They join a small number of tech workers who have gone public to pressure tech leaders. More than 800 of them signed an open letter, organized by a group called ICEOut.tech, that called for tech CEOs to demand that the Trump administration remove ICE agents from U.S. cities and to cancel their companies contracts with the agency. The signatories include names from some of the biggest tech and AI companies, including Apple, Google, Salesforce, Uber, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Big Techs alliance with Trump is paying dividends Only a half decade ago, during the first Trump term, tech companies spoke out loudly against the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, and then introduced broad new diversity policies and programs. Now that many of techs most influential leaderspeople like Musk and venture capitalists David Sacks and Marc Andreessenhave turned so enthusiastically pro-Trump, the tech industry has taken the approach of flattering, appeasing, and bankrolling Trump in his second term. A unified response to the recent events in Minnesota seems impossible. What changed? I doubt that the majority of tech industry has radically changed its political stripes on social issues like race and policing. Whats changed is AI. After the appearance of ChatGPT in 2022, tech leaders could very likely see the broad transition that AI might bring, and the massive and expensive infrastructure build-out that would be needed to support it. (Big Tech, AI, and cloud companies are now betting hundreds of billions of dollars on building new data centers to run AI models.) So tech leaders ecided to get behind the candidate most likely to enable it rather than regulate it. That was Trump, and they did so knowing that a lot of odious social policy would likely come with the deal. Big Tech leaders funded Trumps inauguration and his new White House ballroom. They visited him at Mar-a-Lago and at the White House to advise him on trade and tech policy. Some vigorously defended his policies on social media. And some took roles in his administration (Sacks became Trumps AI and crypto czar and Musk led DOGE, for example). And Trump has delivered. His administrationunder the influence of people like Sacks, Musk, and Andreessenhas made it a top priority to keep the federal government out of the way of the AI infrastructure build-out. The Trump administration has stifled any chance of any meaningful AI regulation (which most Americans favor) in Congress and has even attempted to preempt states from doing so. It has canceled federal investigations into tech companies and attempted to clear away red tape at the state and local levels that might slow data center builds. But the tech industrys alliance with the MAGA crowd has never faced a threat as serious as the one emerging from Minneapolis. Wondering how the eager tech enablers of this regime, including some of my former VC friends and partners, are rationalizing this atrocity, former Andreessen Horowitz partner John OFarrell posted on X. Just the latest in a year of horrors. Is all the crypto and AI money in the world really worth this? Rank-and-file tech workers may not be as ready to swallow their moral scruples as top management is. Theyre becoming more sensitized to Trumps ICE strategy and its consequences on the ground across the country. Every additional act of violence by ICE against American citizens could agitate workers exponentially more and further pressure company leaders to respond in meaningful ways. If Trump persists, tech companies may eventually have to choose between their alliance with Trump and the loyalty of their own employees.
Category:
E-Commerce
An inclusive economy is no longer a moral aspiration or a side project. Business leaders must understand that without inclusion, we cannot create a resilient, growing economy that delivers sustainable returns for all. In places where inclusion is part of the infrastructure of their economysupply chains, procurement processes, capital access, or business ownershippeople thrive. Inclusive economies create more resilience by expanding the base of potential business owners who can build, own, innovate, and hire. They allow more opportunities for homeownership and investing in the longevity of communities. As our economy becomes increasingly stratified and volatile, we need as much resiliency as we can get. At Living Cities, our work with mayors, financial institutions, philanthropy, and community partners shows that places and companies that prioritize inclusion and equity reduce long-term risk, deepen trust, and create or identify new economic opportunities. Those that ignore the benefits of economic inclusion have capital, talent, and residents move elsewhere. INCLUSION PROOF POINTS IN CITIES Consider Memphis, where Black residents are a majority of the population but historically own only a fraction of local businesses. City and local partners supported the creation of Contractors University, a cohort model that equips small firmsmany led by entrepreneurs of colorto bid on and win city contracts. Within months, participating firms converted training into new contracts and rising revenues. Contractors University was able to take one of the largest barriers to business successaccessing procurement dollarsand turned it into a growth platform. In Miami, inclusive capital has become part of the citys resilience strategy. Local leaders were able to preserve affordable space for dozens of small, often new American immigrant-owned businesses through partnerships with community organizations and investors to acquire commercial property in a cultural district. By partnering with local civic leaders, the City of Miami preserves both a burgeoning commercial corridor and future revenue streams. In Austin, cultural incubators and entrepreneurial training programs are translating modest seed grants into new firms, jobs, and community wealthbecause they have been able to offer the targeted support that entrepreneurs have been missing for generations to unlock growth opportunities and sustainable businesses. WHAT BUSINESS LEADERS CAN DO DIFFERENTLY IN 2026 The question for business leaders and investors is no longer whether to support an inclusive economy, but how quickly to align their own practices and policies with what is already working. Three shifts can help leaders tap into the benefits of an inclusive economy: Redesign how capital moves. Replace audit underwriting and investment criteria with bias-adjusted frameworks that recognize the positive records of entrepreneurs and neighborhoods long labeled high-risk. Coupled with innovative credit productssuch as first-loss capital, guarantees, and flexible lines of creditchanging the preconception of what makes a risky investment can lead to an expanded deal pipeline and more opportunities. Treat procurement as a growth engine. Moving beyond diversity pledges toward codified inclusive procurement standards that make it easier for local and small firms to become ongoing vendors. This means simplifying contracting processes, offering technical assistance, and publishing clear inclusion metrics tied to executive performance and cost savings from more resilient local supply chains. Invest in ownership, not just access. Support models that keep wealth rooted locallycooperatives, employee ownership transitions, and community land trustsby aligning corporate philanthropy, impact investing, and civic partnerships around shared-ownership pathways. In St. Paul, for example, a down-payment assistance program has invested in families who lost homes through the execution of the Federal Highway Act, stabilizing neighborhoods and the local economy. A MANDATE FOR THE NEXT ECONOMY The past year has been turbulent, from federal shutdowns to rising costs to contracting labor markets that strain both households and balance sheets. Yet we know the path forward: Cities are proving that local economies which expand the concept of who can be full participants are more productive, predictable, and investable. In 2026, neutrality is not a safe middle ground. Choosing not to prioritize inclusivity and resilience is, in effect, choosing to operate inside an outdated standard for risk, talent, and growth. Business leaders who want to bring about the next era of American prosperity should spend 2026 re-committing to inclusion as a core economic strategy. Joe Scantlebury is the CEO at Living Cities.
Category:
E-Commerce
Meta’s fourth-quarter results jumped past Wall Street’s expectations thanks to solid advertising revenue, sending shares sharply higher in after-hours trading Wednesday. The company earned $22.77 billion, or $8.88 per share, in the October-December quarter. That’s up 9% from $20.84 billion, or $8.02 per share, in the same period a year earlier. Revenue grew 24% to $59.89 billion from $48.39 billion. Analysts, on average, were expecting earnings of $8.21 per share on revenue of $58.5 billion, according to a poll by FactSet. Once again, Meta surpassed analysts earnings expectations for the quarter, cementing its position as one of the worlds most dominant media companies,” said Debra Aho Williamson, chief analyst at Sonata Insights. “Its strong performance provides a solid foundation to continue its massive investments into AI. If there were any signs of revenue shortfall, investors would look at the capital expenditures more negatively. Meta’s expenses, which the company already warned will be significantly higher this year, grew 40% to $35.15 billion. For the current quarter, Meta is forecasting revenue in the range of $53.5 billion to $56.5 billion. That’s above analysts’ forecast of $51.4 billion. For 2026, Meta is forecasting expenses in the range of $162 billion to $169 billion, driven by infrastructure costs and employee compensation, particularly for the artificial intelligence (AI) experts it’s been hiring at eye-popping pay levels. Meta had 78,865 employees at the end of the year, an increase of 6% from a year earlier. Shares of the Menlo Park, California-based company (Nasdaq: META) rose $73.15, or 10.9%, to $741.88 in after-hours trading. By BARBARA ORTUTAY, AP Technology Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
For years, the customer experience playbook has been treated like a technology problem. Add another tool. Deploy another bot. Automate another workflow. And yet here we are, heading into 2026 with customer satisfaction in freefall. Forresters 2025 CX Index shows scores hitting a new low for the fourth consecutive year. This isnt a failure of ambition or innovation. Its a failure of how we define success. Leaders have been optimizing for activity instead of outcomes. In the rush to scale digital engagement, many organizations fell into a bit of a containment trap, measuring success by how many customer interactions never reach a human. On paper, it looks efficient. In reality, its often a false economy. If a customer gets stuck in a bot loop or a bot that cant answer a straightforward question predictably, you havent saved money. Youve lost trust. And very often, youve lost the customer. Its clear that customer experience (CX) needs a reset. Not more experimentation or hype, but more precision. Based on what were seeing across industries, four trends will define whether companies finally break out of the CX recession, or get left behind. 1. CX isnt delivering (because were measuring the wrong things) Despite massive investment, CX outcomes are stalling. The reason is simple: Most organizations are optimizing for the wrong metrics. Containment, deflection, and average handle time tell you how efficiently you move customers away. They tell you very little about whether you actually solved a problem, built loyalty, or created value. The companies that rise to the top are shifting to a hybrid model that treats AI and humans as complementary assets. AI agents handle what theyre best at: instant answers, routine transactions, and scale. Humans step in where judgment, empathy, and nuance matter. The metric shift is critical. High-performing teams measure value creation, not just cost avoidance. Personalization, resolution quality, and revenue impact matter far more than whether a conversation stayed contained, because they create value on both sides of the exchange: Customers get answers that actually move them forward, and brands earn trust, loyalty, and measurable growth. In fact, Gartners data shows that buyers have a 1.8 times greater likelihood of paying a premium, and they are 3.7 times more likely to buy more than they planned, if they feel that experience has been personalized. The future of CX isnt about replacing people. Its about freeing them to do their best work. 2. 2026 is the year of predictable AI Over the past two years, generative AI moved from novelty to necessity. In 2026, the conversation changes again, from capability to control. Unpredictable AI is expensive. Hallucinations, broken flows, and inefficient token usage quietly drain budgets and introduce brand and compliance risk. Thats why predictability has become the most important word in the boardroom. The next phase of AI adoption requires an assurance layera system that continuously tests, validates, and verifies AI behavior before it ever reaches a customer. This de-risks innovation, but just as importantly, it creates the engine for continuous improvement. It provides the framework to constantly learn from interactions, refine accuracy, and reduce the cost of every conversation, turning AI from a “science experiment” into an operational efficiency engine that gets smarter over time. The most advanced organizations are using adversarial simulation to stress-test AI against edge cases, confusion, and hostile inputs. They break their systems before customers can. The result is confidence that allows leaders to deploy AI in high-value, high-risk use cases like payments, healthcare, and financial services. Predictable AI doesnt just reduce risk. It unlocks ROI and drives value creation. 3. The CX budget crunch is an opportunity CX leaders arent struggling because budgets disappeared. Theyre struggling because scrutiny increased. In 2026, no one is funding nice-to-have initiatives. Every dollar must tie directly to financial outcomes. CX leaders need to stop selling soft metrics and start telling a before-and-after story showcasing what changed, by how much, and why it matters to the business. The most effective teams reposition CX not as a cost center, but as an efficiency engine. They run focused pilots, prove results quickly, and use hard data to unlock broader deployment. When you can demonstrate measurable improvements in resolution rates, conversion, or operational efficiency in 90 days, the budget conversation changes. CX stops being discretionary. It becomes essential. 4. Marketers must catch up with consumers expectations The biggest growth shift of 2026 isnt happening in the contact center. Its happening at the top of the funnel. Traditional lead generation is breaking down. Buyers dont want forms. They want answers, on their terms, in the moment of intent. Conversational AI enables a concierge model that replaces gated funnels with real-time, personalized dialogue. The economics are compelling. A self-service interaction costs pennies. A live agent interaction can cost dollars. But when done right, conversational AI delivers a low-cost interaction that feels premium and high touch. More importantly, it respects the customers time. And in 2026, that can be the ultimate differentiator. PRECISION IS THE NEW SCALE The lesson early in 2026 is simple: Scaling without precision is noise. Precision without scale is irrelevant. The best companies will master both. That means measurable CX, predictable AI, disciplined investment, and conversations that meet people exactly where they are. We dont need more technology. We need better outcomes. And if we get that right, 2026 wont just be the year CX recovers, but the year it finally delivers. John Sabino is CEO of LivePerson.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] next »