as he or she accepts medicare patients. and three: these are the only medicare supplement plans endorsed by aarp. learn more about why you should choose an aarp medicare supplement plan. call today for a free guide. good morning it is 1:00 a.m. at softbank headquarters in tokyo, 11:00 a.m. on wall street. "squawk alley" is live ♪

♪ good friday morning. welcome to "squawk alley." i am carly fiorina with morgan brennan at post 9 of the new york stock exchange. jon fortt has the morning off. obviously markets are extending losses today, trying to shave some from session lows all on pace for the worst week of the year. latest jobs numbers shows 20,000 jobs were added in february, worst for job creation since september of '17 larry kudlow joined us this morning. here's his take. >> we are the source of stimulus we're the hottest economy in the world, and we are despite this number, we are on a roll and i'm going to say the outlook for the american economy is still 3%

growth plus. >> joining us, lindsey pee et is a and equity strategist and chief investment officer michael wilson good morning, good to see you. >> thanks for having me. >> kudlow calls it a fluky number, pay no attention to it is his words is that your stance? can we look at the three month average of 180 and change? >> i think it was a disappointing number on a nominal basis and relative to expectations we have to look at it in the context of last month which was an outsized above 300,000. we see the pace of job creation slowed from 230,000 to 190,000 yes, the momentum in terms of job creation has slowed, but it is not nearly as dismal as it would be if you focused just on the february report. and of course there was some one

off implications from unseasonably cold and wet weather across much of the country that compounded that downward pressure on goods producing payrolls or construction specifically. and it wasn't all negative we did see improvement in the unemployment rate and in wages, but here too, we need to put it in broader context wage gains have really only picked up more recently after years of more lackluster growth. at this point they may prove short-lived, if we are talking about waning momentum in terms of top line activity or possible recession around the corner. >> lindsey, we had a mixed bag in terms of data in the u.s. we had that polar vortex and some wonky weather, the government shutdown, a number of other factors that could be playing into some reports we have gotten, including this one this morning could we actually see sustained 3% plus growth in the u.s., like kudlow is suggesting >> well, i do think it is going to be difficult to get 3% or

above as he suggested but i think we'll maintain positive growth in 2019, but closer to what the federal reserve is looking for for slower pace relative to last year. looking for growth to come in 1.5 to 1.8%, noticeable decline. glass half full, still positivity for the u.s. going forward. but you're right, the mixed data doesn't suggest solid ground, it suggests still positive, but uneven ground at best for the u.s. economy. >> meanwhile you've got the export data out of china, you've got factory orders out of germany. to what degree does the u.s. economy dovetail with what we know kmchlt us is doing around the world. >> this is the concern by policy makers, they point to political weak nls and geopolitical risks, and they only care as it extends to the u.s that contagion factor in terms

of reduced global growth translating into slower demand for goods and services overall, commodities, raw materials this is where the concern of importing deflation or disinflationary pressures to the u.s. comes into play this is compounding the outlook for reduced growth but slower inflation number in the u.s. as well this is a global economy and the u.s. does have to take into account that we are seeing very reduced output levels overseas as you mention, disappointing growth numbers in europe, italy, the latest i believe latest casualty to recession, german economy, largest economy of the block bouncing along near zero growth at this point, and weakest growth profile out of china in decades this compounds a much more dire or dismal outlook for the global economy which will have implications here at home. >> so in light of those comments you just made, in light of the

ecb 180 degree move yesterday to gear up for more easing, where does that put the fed through the rest of this year? >> that was a pretty exciting floumt from the ecb. that type of program wasn't a surprise in and of itself. we have seen the european central bank take that type of lending program before, but the timing was shocking. generally they give a substantial lead time to the market to begin to acknowledge the fact that additional stimulus is coming down the pipeline, so really sending a signal of emergency or sense of immediacy. in terms of the fed, this is likely to compound the need for patience, the fed feeling comfortable in their position on the sideline, bypassing the march meeting with near probability of 90%, no additional rate hikes this year, and at this point if we continue to see some of that weakness as we expect bubbling underneath the surface become more evident in data, the next move from the fed is likely to be to the down

side, potentially as early as the end of this year >> lindsey, thanks we did want to hear from mike wilson who has been bearish on equities and said that a jobs number would be key as to whether or not we could move higher from here, try to get him next time. david faber sat down with one of the most influential investors in the world, softbank masa son playing the sound all morning long. >> and we have more for you on "squawk alley" involving uber. the vision fund run by mr. son is the largest single investor in uber, significant stake that was taken in part during a lot of turmoil when travis kalanick was on the way out, but things have calmed down at that company under the leadership, and they're awaiting the upcoming ipo which may be, let's see, fairly soon, what many people believe for uber which could be

a pay day to some extent for the vision fund, althoughmr. son indicated perhaps not. we did talk a lot about uber and as well the rise of autonomous driving and whether that will prove to be a more profitable uber when that hits years from now in the future. >> i definitely think so the autonomous driving is coming no matter what, okay that's a technology. that's a destiny of where technology is going to drive us. when the autonomous driving comes, the cost of providing dramatically get more efficient. it was dramatically reduced, rate of accident compared to human driving accident i think that would be definitely

coming very, very soon >> and do you see yourself wanting to be a long term shareholder of uber, you mention an ipo is coming, there will be opportunity to monetize some of your stake in the public markets. will the vision fund do that >> i would like to as long as possible of course, it all depends on the share price. sometimes share price goes too high too quickly, then we have to harvest a little bit, but it all depends on the market conditions, but do i believe the company is going to grow exponentially, i definitely believe so. >> and you're happy with the management now i would assume? >> i'm very respectful to the new management, he is very, very smart, very, very balanced >> what do you mean by well balanced >> he can be very offensive to

increase the business and he can also be very, you know, cost efficient, the employees, morale and so on. so i respect that. at the same time, i also have to mention i respect travis tremendously he is one of the best in the entrepreneurs, he is a pioneer you know, when you have to pioneer the new frontier, you have to have energy, the passion out of the box thinking. his aggressive is one of the best. >> would you see supporting him in some potential new ventures >> i would love to it all depends on the price. but i tremendously respect him

also >> travis kalanick was the founder of uber, still a significant shareholder i believe, right still. >> yes. >> and all about the price interesting. he did come back to that he talks about years and years of owning stocks he did say in uber, whatever it is, whatever price it would be, they would consider potentially selling some or harvesting some. if you want to invest in kalanick who is starting new ventures, including cloud kitchens, uber has uber eats, an interesting component of that business too >> does he talk about the uber investment as a favorite son, so to speak >> not really. it sort of fits in and it is funny, remember they also invested 2.25 in gm cruz autonomous driving effort. carl, they're across the board they have navigation companies he sees it as part of a portfolio, going back to the

initial bite we ran this morning of being involved in the growth of artificial intelligence across industries. >> just a fascinating interview, that segment in particular really got my attention. you're joining us later in the hour to talk about that and more. >> talk more about we work and why he sees it not as a real estate company that being one of the key criticisms if you want to call it that of we work and its very high valuation and obviously a very significant owner. >> thank you more in a bit. straight ahead, much more on that exclusive interview with masayoshi son. first, the gender problem facing silicon valley is in the spotlight. we speak with two influential voices in that space, ask what's being done to disrupt the status quo. later, chair ed lazear on

the february jobs report a sy hbuour straight ahead when "squawk alley" returns ♪ " with a barbershop quartet? [quartet singing] bum bum bum bum... pass the ball... pass the rock.. ...we're open just pass the ball! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. yea. [quartet singing] shoot the j! shoot, shoot, shoot the jaaaaaay... believe it! geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

welcome back to "squawk alley. silicon valley has a problem when it comes to gender. startups led by only female founders raised under $3 billion compared with $100 billion by male lead startups

they continue to grow market share when it comes to funding joining us, alley wheeler. you're both here at post 9 good morning to you both >> good morning. >> anu, i'll start with you. in terms of the gap in venture capital, the numbers are still stubbornly low in terms of dollars flowing to female founded companies. why is that and how is your company looking to address that? >> sure. i think at a high level we have a long way to go, but one of the things we have been doing as a fund is tracking change at the bottom where it starts, the first institutional ground every year we put out an annual report looking at how many series a rounds are led by companies with a female founder. in new york in 2018, there was

one. again, the high level numbers, we have a long way to go, but it's important to look at change that's starting from the bottom because ultimately those companies go on to raise billions of dollars that you're talking about. >> and it is interesting, the data really -- the numbers are eye popping when you look at the data, but the devil is in the details how you assess that data when you look at the total venture capital pie, so much of that number is led by mega rounds and when you look at the mega rounds, that's money that's been flowing into these companies that tend to be more male run, male started how much is that destroying the data and does that speak to the fact that perhaps until this point when you look at what's further along the pipeline in getting big rounds, it has been men to begin with. >> you make a good point on the data but i think it ultimately comes down to the venture side,

9% of decision makers at venture firms are women. that's eye poppingly low to use your words, but then the disparity on founders and especially in larger rounds, it gets even wider. so at the institutional seed and getting to series a, even there, the size of rounds that women are raising are smaller. yes, you're seeing mega rounds, are in fact male led companies when i end up having larger and larger rounds at the later stage, that becomes even more of a gap. >> does it feel in the valley like this is a crisis emergency needs to be addressed urgently or sort of going to let the numbers decide and work itself out. >> i think what we have seen, particularly in the last 12 to

18 months is that almost all of the large silicon valley funds have brought on female partners. i think part of that has been very much tied to the me too movement and change across the industry, but i think what that has resulted in is women that have more power in terms of investing, and when you look at a typical female investor at a fund, they are investing more diverse dollars, looking at a 50/50 split. i think all of that change is healthy for the industry >> are women a risky bet, there seems to be mythology out there, but in terms of returns for these companies versus male counterparts, what are the numbers? >> the numbers are good. i mean numbers are good across the board in terms of actually generating good return, in terms of women more often actually hitting targets that they set out on a micro level, so company by company there's an economic case to do it, and i think that's the way

the argument needs to be framed. you're not making money you could be making by missing out on backing female founders and founders from underrepresented groups. >> elly and i both were investors in a company that had an exit last year and the company was acquired by walmart. again, it was a serial founder, great example for the new york city tech ecosystem for female founders that you can build great exciting businesses that are market leaders and really have exits that was exciting. >> and we're having the conversation today because it is international women's day. i would love to get to the point we're not having this conversation because it is international women's day, but since we have you both here, since you're experts in tech, we want to get your thoughts on some other headlines today the 2020 presidential hopeful senator elizabeth warren unveiling a plan to break up the biggest tech companies like

amazon and facebook. in a blog post, warren says she wants to make big structural changes to the tech sector to promote more competition we have been having this debate on "squawk alley" quite some time, the idea of are we in a monopoly anti-trust discussion type of environment when it comes to the biggest tech companies, and anu, i'll start with you would it make sense to break up some of the big companies, would it help more startups? >> so i think that the perspective that you can take on this is that google, facebook, all of the large tech companies are both platforms but also have massive audiences. i think that's what senator warren was referring to. and i think ultimately what politicians need to do a better job of is understanding these businesses i mean, we saw this when mark zuckerberg testified again, the