Utah

Foreign language speakers in Utah is the state’s secret economic weapon

On Utah’s ‘Silicon Slopes,’ Tech Jobs Get A Lift

by STEVE HENN

 

Audio for this story from All Things Considered will be available at approx. 7:00 p.m. ET

 

Douglas C. Pizac/APMore and more technology companies are setting up shop in Utah, where the slopes, climbing, mountain-biking and trail-running are bringing executives in all the way from Silicon Valley.
 
March 12, 2012

Last year, Utah created jobs at a faster pace than any other state in the country — with the single exception of North Dakota. While the boom in North Dakota is being driven by oil and gas, the hot job market in Utah is being powered by technology companies.

Computer-system design jobs in Utah shot up nearly 12 percent in 2011. Scientific and technical jobs jumped 9.7 percent. With job opportunities expanding, the state is having little trouble attracting new residents.

For Jill Layfield, the decision to move here from Silicon Valley was not a tough call.


Courtesy of BackcountryAs a rock climber, Backcountry CEO Jill Layfield says moving from a Silicon Valley tech company to one in Utah was a no-brainer.

«Not difficult at all,» she said, laughing. «I’m a big fan of climbing, mountain-biking, skiing and trail running — the idea of being able to come work for a tech company and live in a ski resort was a very easy decision.»

Indeed, Utah’s boosters are calling the state’s booming tech scene the Silicon Slopes.

Jeremy Andrus moved to Utah from San Francisco.

«We’ve got a powder rule — six inches of fresh powder in the morning we expect you to go carve some turns,» he said.

While these two might sound like ski bums — don’t be fooled: They are both chief executive officers.

Layfield runs Backcountry.com — an online retailer in Park City, Utah, that did nearly $300 million in sales last year. And she’s hiring this year.

«We are hiring people in marketing and merchandizing — we are always looking for great gear heads,» she said.

Layfield needs programmers, product managers and engineers. And it’s not just techies who need apply.

«It doesn’t matter. If somebody great comes through the door we’ll find a position for them,» she said. «If you are smart and you are passionate about the consumer Internet and building great products. If you want to have fun at work and be around great people, we want to hear from you.»

Since 2007, Backcountry.com has more than tripled its Utah workforce. It now has roughly 1,000 employees. All through the recession Backcountry was hiring.

Jeremy Andrus might be able to pass as a ski bum but he’s a Harvard Business School graduate. He runs a Park City company called Skullcandy, which makes designer headphones for snowboarders, skaters and surfers.

Skullcandy recently went public and is now worth about $400 million. Andrus is hiring too.

Skullcandy executive Jeremy Andrus says the company’s mountainside location in Park City, Utah, is a defining part of its culture.

Park City is a defining part of the company’s culture.

«We buy a season’s pass to the Canyons [a local ski resort] for all of our employees,» Andrus said. «People value that [when] you come in in the wintertime you are going to see wet snowboards hanging from the wall. You come in during the summer and you are going to see dirty mountain bikes in there.»

Andrus says offering this kind of affordable outdoor work life makes hiring talented young employees easy. And thousands of Utah tech companies are taking advantage.

«There are 6,600 companies — tech companies — right here within an hour of where we are at,» said Josh James, the chief executive of a Utah startup called Domo and a serial entrepreneur.

But Utah’s tech economy is taking off for more reasons than just the great outdoors. The state is managing to create a miniature version of Silicon Valley. Hundreds of communities around the world have attempted this trick — few have truly succeeded.

The Silicon Valley formula is no secret. Take a great research university, work with scientists and engineers there to commercialize their best ideas, add money in the form of venture capitalists, throw in some entrepreneurs and stir.

Recruiting Researchers

Utah was starting with a big disadvantage. It doesn’t have research institutions that truly rival Stanford and Berkley or Harvard and MIT. But officials at the University of Utah and the state government recognized that weakness and took steps to address it head on.

Utah Tech Sector Jobs

Includes professional, scientific and technical services jobs.

Utah Tech Sector Jobs

In 2006 the state launched the Utah Science and Technology Research Initiative or USTAR. The program invested more than $100 million in the state’s universities. The goal was to recruit top researchers in key economic areas from around the world. By all accounts the program is working — the researchers Utah recruited to the state are creating real economic value.

«Absolutely,» University of Utah President David Pershing said. «We have certainly had faculty that have come in the USTAR program and have now started up small companies.» The program created even more jobs than Utah officials expected. Some of the academics the state recruited brought existing companies with them.

At the same time, the University of Utah took steps to help make it easier to turn cutting edge research into a business. It reformed its technology licensing system. It created a new vice president in charge of technology transfer and helped introduce business students to the engineers and scientists doing the research.

Pershing said that just a few years ago, the school was spinning off new companies at a rate of about three a year, which was typical for a school of its size. «But that was not enough to have a real economic impact,» he said.

Now the U, as it’s known, is spinning off roughly 25 new companies a year.

«That’s exciting,» Pershing said. «Now they are not all going to grow to be great big companies — and we know that. But some are growing very nicely.»

Venture Capitalists Take Note

Utah has had big tech companies for 30 years — WordPerfect was founded here. So was Novell. But Josh James says a decade ago, landing funding for a startup in this state was tough. To get funding for a business in the state entrepreneurs often had to fly to California and make their pitches.

«I remember early in my career I’m talking to a guy — a venture capitalist — and he was really interested in my business,» James recalled. «I’m at Silicon Valley at a cocktail reception. Then all of a sudden he says, ‘Wait, wait, wait — where are you at?’ and I said Utah and he turns around and walks away — doesn’t say no thanks — doesn’t say not interested.»


Derek SmithJosh James co-founded the Web analytics site Omniture in 1996, then sold it to Adobe for $1.8 billion in 2009. Domo is James’ latest startup.

It ticked him off. In fact, James still remembers that investor’s name.

«I’m like OK — we are going to show you. And we are going to show everyone else,» James said.

He did.

The business James was pitching was called Omniture. Eventually he took it public, then sold it to Adobe for $1.8 billion. Venture capitalists — or VCs — have taken notice of successes like that.

«There were 110 VC investments last year in the state,» James said. «Every VC that comes and visits me always asks are there two or three other companies that we can visit while we are there. So there is definitely capital flowing.»

Last year, venture capital investment in Utah shot up 54 percent. And James, along with other successful Utah entrepreneurs, are re-investing their profits in the state’s technology scene.

«I’ve invested in probably 30 deals here in Utah, where I have put in 50 grand to half a million dollars,» he said.

Utah’s Secret Economic Weapon

It’s not just startups that are expanding here. eBay has had a presence in Utah since the 1990s. It runs a big call center.

«We have moved about 350 jobs from the Philippines back over here to Salt Lake city,» says Scott Murray, eBay’s vice president in charge the company’s Utah operations.

Fastest Growing State Job Markets

Rate of growth from December 2010 to December 2011, not including farm payrolls.

Fastest Growing State Job Markets

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Credit: Stephanie d’Otreppe

Why?

«The key for us is that 20 percent of our transactions are cross-border trade,» Murray said. And Utah happens to have the highest percentage of foreign language speakers in the country. It’s the state’s secret economic weapon.

Every year, thousands of Mormon missionaries come back to Utah after spending two years abroad, learning a foreign language, foreign customs and intricacies of a foreign culture.

Andrus, Skullcandy’s CEO, learned Italian on a mission; James learned Japanese.

So at eBay, if a buyer from Brazil has a problem with a seller from Slovakia — there’s a good chance the folks here can handle it.

«In my department we had a Russian speaker, a Brazilian who spoke Portuguese. We had a Filipinos who spoke Tagalog. I think we had one other person who spoke Chinese as well,» said Michael Bobo, an eBay employee in the Utah call center who mastered French on a mission.

But it’s not only eBay that’s interested in foreign language fluency. The National Security Agency recently decided to build a $1.2 billion data center here.

The NSA is circumspect about what brought the agency to the state, but economic development officials here are convinced foreign language skills were a big draw.

«That’s very definitely linked to the linguistic talent that’s here,» said Jeff Edwards, president of the Economic Development Corporation of Utah.

El derecho a portar armas

Right to keep and bear arms

English: French officer flintlock pistol, 1st ...

Libertad de expresión

Como cualquier país, como cualquier sociedad, Estados Unidos es un cúmulo de contradicciones. Gracias a la libertad de expresión rigurosamente reconocida por ley y por tradición, una persona puede desfilar con la bandera nazi por una calle sin consecuencias legales. En Europa basta que un historiador o un panadero cuestionen una parte de la historia oficial sobre el nazismo para ir a la cárcel, como si la libertad se pudiese proteger de los brotes autoritarios con métodos autoritarios. Como si la verdad se pudiese legislar. Como si la verdad necesitase de la policía para sobrevivir a las agresiones de la ignorancia.

Pero en Estados Unidos el derecho a la libre expresión irremediablemente lleva a otra contradicción. Al no existir, como en muchos países, la misma figura criminal de la apología del delito, una persona o un grupo pueden incitar al odio. El odio no está prohibido. Solo se puede prohibir los crímenes por odio. El argumento que sostiene esta práctica no es malo: si limitamos a unos su derecho de expresión, unos estarían tomándose atributos sobre otros sobre qué se puede decir y qué se debe callar.

De cualquier forma, en los hechos ni la libertad ni la libertad de expresión son iguales para todos. En los países con gobiernos autoritarios el Estado censura y controla la libertad de expresión; en países capitalistas como Estados Unidos el capital censura y administra la libertad de expresión, ya que un millonario siempre tendrá algunos millones de oportunidades más que un obrero para expresar su voz o para promover su agenda política (to lobby).

Sin embargo, si ante estas contradicciones casi irresolubles fuese necesario elegir entre encarcelar a los locos y revisionistas y tener que escuchar las peores ideas y expresiones de los peores criminales, me quedo con esta última opción.

 

Derecho a portar armas

Otra contradicción fundamental surge en disputas éticas y legales como el derecho a portar armas para la defensa propia.

Recientemente se ha reinstalado el debate en Estados Unidos sobre la validez de portar armas. En los campus universitarios están prohibidas pero en Utah existen casos donde la ley lo garantiza.

No hace mucho un amigo me decía que no son las armas las que matan a las personas sino las personas que las usan. Aunque esta es una verdad irrefutable e innecesaria, advertí que el argumento venía en defensa del porte de armas. Según sus defensores, la Segunda Enmienda de la constitución de Estados Unidos lo garantiza junto con el derecho a la autodefensa. No está claro si el sujeto de derecho se refiere a los individuos o a los pueblos.

Tradicionalmente, la poderosa y bien temida Asociación del Rifle de Estados Unidos ha usado el mismo argumento para defender la propiedad y el millonario mercado de armas que circula en este país.

Sin embargo, no es lo mismo un criminal con un palo que con una pistola. Si como víctima tuviese la libertad de elegir, yo elegiría la primera opción. No solo porque mis posibilidades de sobrevivencia serían mayores sino porque al menos me quedaría algo de mi derecho a la autodefensa, ese derecho que tanto esgrimen los amantes del rifle y que protege la constitución.

Mientras volaba por la autopista I-95, camino a la universidad, escuchaba esta misma discusión por PBS, la radio publica. Quien criticaba este derecho a portar armas por defensa propia argumentaba que de esa forma pronto cada ciudadano podría portar una bazooka. Quien defendía este derecho respondió que ese tipo de armas no están contempladas como armas de defensa individual.

La discusión es infinita y, por alguna razón, se detiene y se pierde en ad hocs.

Ahora, como la discusión se centra en los aspectos legales de las interpretaciones constitucionales, nada mejor que ir a la fuente. La Segunda Enmienda es muy simple y no especifica el tipo de arma que se contempla.

De hecho, la enmienda se refiere a las milicias populares y a los ejércitos organizados. Simplemente reza: “Una milicia bien regulada, siendo necesaria para la seguridad de un Estado libre, el derecho del pueblo de portar armas, no debe ser vulnerado”.[1]

Esta enmienda se comprende si recordamos que los padres fundadores de Estados Unidos en su mayoría hacían gala de un espíritu anarquista y solían repetir que los pueblos tenían derecho a revelarse contra cualquier gobierno que se extralimitase en sus atributos. Irónicamente, esto es lo último que quieren recordar los conservadores más radicales que abogan por un gobierno mínimo con un ejército máximo.

También el “right to keep and bear arms” es otra de las contradicciones constituyentes y fundadoras que podemos observar en cada país. Toda constitución reconoce que lo legítimo es superior y preexiste a lo legal, pero al legalizar lo legítimo proscribe toda legitimidad ilegal. Es decir, la constitución defiende el derecho civil a la rebelión y al uso de armas contra el poder oficial, pero en muchos casos cada legitimidad, los límites de cada derecho, puede ser materia de discusión. Como los limites de la líbre expresión, del porte de armas y del derecho a la modificación de la misma constitución.

Ahora, si los mismo defensores de las armas reconocen que ni un tanque de guerra ni una bazooka pueden ser considerados como armas de defensa personal, ¿dónde está el limite legítimo y legal? ¿Por qué, por ejemplo, este derecho constitucional cesa completamente en los aeropuertos?

La solución, entiendo, aun desde el punto de vista más conservador (los defensores de las armas son el extremo más conservador de la sociedad americana) consiste en ir directamente al tiempo en que fue escrita la enmienda que se evoca con tanta pasión. Es decir, 1791.

Supongamos, arbitrariamente, que la palabra “arms” no se refiere a un palo ni a un cuchillo. Se refiera a un arma de fuego. Por entonces, el arma de fuego personal más peligrosa no era mucho más que una pistola tipo flintlock (mosquete o revolver de chispa).

Una pistola estándar en 2010 puede alcanzar una distancia de cincuenta a cien metros. A poco menos distancia puede volarle la cabeza a cualquier ser humano con un solo disparo. Un viejo trabuco o una

difícilmente podrían herir de gravedad a un hombre a quince pasos. Por algo este tipo de pistolas eran comunes para uso personal y para la práctica de duelos, precisamente porque los contendientes rara vez perdían la vida por un disparo a corta distancia. Quienes se defendían de un delincuente salvaban la vida, la vida propia y la vida del delincuente; quienes se defendían de un agravio salvaban el honor en el siglo XIX y hacían el ridículo en el siglo XX.

Si la diferencia entre una pistola y una bazooka, entre un arma legal y otra ilegal, es su poder de destrucción, la misma lógica debemos aplicar para distinguir una pistola antigua de una pistola moderna. El diablo y la diferencia constitucional están en el adjetivo.

La solución técnica y legal es obvia. Si defendemos la Segunda Enmienda desde una perspectiva verdaderamente conservadora, las únicas armas que podrían ser legales para uso individual no podrían tener más potencia ni ser mas peligrosas que una equivalente a una flintlock de 1790. Es decir, algo poco más potente que una onda o una piedra lanzada con la mano.

 

– Jorge Majfud, Lincoln University, marzo 2010.

http://alainet.org/active/36497

Milenio (Mexico)