"press: here" is sponsored by -- forget the cost of business can workers support a hike in minimum wage? why the next generation of entry-level employees may not be people at all. plus, the words you should never say to a venture capitalist. our reporters richard waters from the financial times and bloomberg's sarah frier this week on "press: here".

>> good morning, everyone, i'm scott mcgrew. i saw a billboard recently that absolutely stopped me cold because its message was so spot on. here it is san francisco, meet your minimum wage replacement, an ipad. hello, may i take your order, it says. it was placed there by a think tank that opposed the city's move to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. though that's exactly what the city did. and i tracked down the fella behind that billboard. he's michael saltsman of the employeement institute based in washington, d.c. and funded by big business. now, i suspect michael and i disagree on a whole host of opinions, but not on this because this is not opinion, it's fact. the fact is technology is quickly replacing workers. not just in factories. we knew that but especially in entry-level, low-skilled jobs.

there are no toll takers on the golden gate bridge they've been replaced by fast track. grocery store self checkout nothing new, and restaurants like chile's now take orders via tablet. mcdonald's has been testing the same concept in europe for years. and yet there is a nationwide movement to raise the pay for the very people in danger of losing their jobs to an ipad. an ipad that will work for free. michael saltsman is the former economyist with the bureau of labor statistics recently wrote an op-ed, "the employee of the month has a battery." and welcoming sarah frier of bloomberg. before we get to how you and i agree on a whole lot of things i want to go over this employee policy institute thing, which is somehow associated with berman

and company, a p.r. firm. am i fair in saying funded by big business? >> yeah in fact if you read any op-ed i write, we acknowledge in the end we receive some of our support from the restaurant industry employment policies institute is a nonprofit that's managed by berman and company, saves us on the overhead we don't need to have a full-time graphic designer on staff. >> when i say you're funded by big business exactly, i am. >> my next question would be what are the problem with my facts? if there are no problem with my facts -- >> let's get to facts, and that is, i absolutely want everyone to make a living wage to have a great success in this great country of ours. however, i do understand that if you're earning $10 an hour and you walk off your job demanding $15 an hour and you could be replaced by an ipad that's just a bad strategy on your part. >> i think it is. i mean i think we can all agree

broadly on the idea that reducing poverty, raising wages at the bottom end of the career ladder is a good goal but the question is what are the best means to accomplish it? the minimum wage has always come with tradeoffs, but i think what technology today has enabled is for those tradeoffs to be much more dramatic. it's no longer you know denny's leaving the coffee pot on the table so you can refill your own cup, it's large scale changes that could lead to a restaurant no longer having to hire cashiers or wait staff. >> but this has been around for years. i mean i wrote a story about this i think, two or three years ago and at that time people were saying this is going to change everything once people see it's economically feasible and you think the thing that's going to tip the scale is minimum wage but does that mean it's not currently economically a good idea for these restaurants to get ipads? what is the tipping point? >> i think the tipping point becomes labor cost increases. that could be minimum wage. it could be something like the affordable care act, you know

two years ago there was a front wage wall street journal story about what chili's was doing to adapt to the cost of the affordable care act, front of the house and back of the house, so i actually since your original story, i think if you look at chains like chili's, which has installed these tablets at all corporately owned locations, i think we're getting towards that point where the economics start to make a lot more sense. >> i think we can all agree that technology is exerting downward pressure on wages. exacerbating -- >> even the number of employees. >> but at some point, seems to me the question here is at what point do we say it is not economically optimal or socially acceptable for wages to keep going down? the minimum wage has actually been in operation for a long time in the u.s. and, you know the u.s. has one of the strongest economies in the world and is actually going to lead the world this year out of recession. it's the u.s. consumer that's actually been behind a lot of --

one of the strongest engines in the world economy, so you know, seems to me whatever we can argue about whether san francisco should be $15 or $12 at some point, the issue here is, how are people at the bottom end of the wage scale going to be able to afford goods and services? >> but is it though? in the sense that i mean we want these people to afford all these things but, no it's a matter of when is it that the person costs more than the device that would do the same job? >> the ultimate tension point here is, too, in any minimum wage debate, it always comes back to the customer. if the customer was always willing to pay higher prices we'd have no debate about the minimum wage because restaurants would just increase prices and there wouldn't be an issue, but it's because people are price sensitive that we run into these tensions, that if you can't raise your prices you have to find a way to provide the same service at a lower cost and i think that's where the problem you run into is you don't have jobs, the same transition entry

level jobs that previous generations have. we wind up with those that don't have the same experiences that previous generation did. >> but in the face of technology people always have been an argument that you cannot argue for higher wages because technology will be something different. walter, the auto union boss one of the great kings of the labor union said he went to a ford factory, said look at all those robots. they were automating look at all those robots who's going to pay your union dues in the future? yeah but who's going to buy your fords? that's always been the tradeoff here, without a decent wage you know these companies can't thrive and survive, and so it's just too easy to kind of -- seems to me back into a corner and say we can't fight the computers, we give up take a lower wage or give up our jobs.

>> i don't think it's fighting the computers so much. the question is at what point are we accelerating decisions, 2045 would it be possible to have widespread automation everywhere? i think that's possible but i think what we're doing now and a number of banking analysts have written about this, we're accelerateing transitions at a time when a state like california unemployment rate for teens is near 28% still, so i think we're accelerating these things in a way that's actually harmful for the people in this case that we're trying to help. >> i mean you have to think about it in a broader way because while this works in airports and it works at fast food places you know i was a hostess once and sometimes somebody will ask you, do you mind can i get some turkey for my kid who doesn't want to eat a full meal? people always want specific little things that aren't on the menu or maybe need to ask what ingredients are in something, and, yes, i see that tablets can provide better service in many cases, but, you know isn't

waitressing, being a hostess isn't it always going to be a service job? >> it's a good question, and i think we'll go back to the chili's example. a colleague of mine was traveling recently and was in a chili'ses chili's, in a 16-section you had two servers where you use to have four or five to cover. it's true, there's still someone you can ask a question to but also three jobs that no longer exist because most of the work is done via the tablet at the table. >> let me ask you this question why do you care in the sense let's create this strawman named sam, works at mcdonald's, literally walked off his job so he could go protest for $15 wages to which the restaurant could say well we'll just replace you with an ipad. what difference does it make to you or your organization? in other words let the wage rise and the market will do what the market will do. >> i think the concern should be and there's a robust body of

research on what happens when people miss out on entry level opportunities. basically shows you're at a higher risk of being unemployed again, earning lower wages later in life and on the flip side those who work in high school six to nine years after graduation are more likely to be in a job that pays better and has more benefits. when people miss out on that our concern should be do we become a situation where we have 40% youth unemployment and vast swaths of people who can't find work because we've rendered them unemployable because they never had the same job opportunities and chance to start their way up the career ladder. >> michael saltsman, thank you for being with us. i think this is a subject near and dear to so many of us so many facets of it but technology, i swear, is going to come in and make its own decisions. up next the thing you absolutely should not say to a venture capitalist when "press: here" continues.

welcome back to "press: here," the numbers are in and it turns out it was a really good year for venture capital. it raised more than $44 billion in 2014. uber raised the most money according to data from pitch book while 500 startups did the most deals. if you want money for your startup, you're going to have to

talk to someone like him. you say there are some things you never, ever ever want to hear from somebody pitching you. give me a big one. >> absolutely. you don't want to pitch the flavor of the day to a v.c. >> like uber -- >> like uber for this data for this clouds for that social for them. >> people do that to journalists all the time. >> that's because we're dumb and we can only understand it. >> absolutely absolutely. misconception that people see the flavor of the day. but what they don't understand is people like us are looking for unique perspective about a market problem other people have not figured out. >> but excuse me it does seem looking at what people invest in the valley, there are trends so artificial intelligence is a current trend where everybody has to have a couple of a.i. companies in the portfolio, so you can understand why companies

would come to someone like you and say i have a great a.i. company, why don't you invest. >> that is true v.c.s have this fear of missing out and they try to invest in that trend, but good companies and bad companies, good investment and bad investment whether it's a bunch of technology or a solution to a problem. if you look at a.i. machine learning artificial intelligence, bunch of technologies. you have a problem that you can solve for your customers. if you have, you're a great business. >> we journalists tend to call that the hook. what's the thing that's going to do something other than you have a large data company? what else do you not want to hear from the young people coming up to your door and knocking on it? >> other thing i don't like to hear is that people think if they have big advisers that will help get funding or credibility. >> i thought that too. >> we see it the other way around.

i see it the other way around because if you have the big name adviser who's taken three shares from you and doesn't work in the company or she doesn't work in the company, no value. that person is not going to spend a single minute with you. >> the other thing, you tend to know that person better than they do. they are going to throw down a scott mcneilly or something like that had drinks with that guy the other day sort of thing. you are not impressed. >> did you read his recent book? he said you have a problem with the clean tech bubble, all these investors turned up in suits and ties and that was the warning, salesmen. everybody's throwing away their suits and ties. sorry, scott. >> it's an nbc requirement. you met me halfway. >> what about the later stage companies, the ones that ask for certain preferences or options or equity at a certain level.

say, like travis comes up to you and says you can be part of uber, but you'll have absolutely no power in decision making part of our board, but silent. >> the difference is later stage companies are set in its way. and as a new investor you cannot influence the company's direction. only time that will help influence the company is the first 12 months of the company. that's what i invest in. first 12 months you help set the foundation of the company. after that the train is moving you are just a passenger. >> are there any personal things you look out for when you meet entrepreneurs? what are the little signs you personally think, you know that's what tells me this person really gets it or they are going to be a great company founder? >> two things quiet confidence not bombastic, quiet confidence. this determination to succeed, because building a business is

not a fun thing. it looks very sexy from outside, but it's a lot of struggle so this guy or this gal has this stamina that i'm going to get into it and stick with it through ups and downs, that's number one. number two is really a unique perspective of the market something that you know that they don't. doesn't mean it's a big huge secret, just perfecter, can you look at this problem differently, provide a value to your customers which nobody else has been thinking about. >> you mention in the first 12 months, the only time you can truly influence that company, have you ever yet thought to yourself maybe i shouldn't influence? maybe i would mess this up they've got something going, i'll invest but i'm going to let them figure it out on their own. >> i think about it all the time because nobody knows how to run a business. it's your perspective and anybody's opinion. typically, my opinion has been

look, i'm going to be a doting father, i'll tell you all this good and bad, you pick your own battle and go fight it out. for example, when i met one of the companies that i was the founding investor in they had a very simple proposition. they said we are going to separate storage performance from capacity and you buy performance through software and this vision when they started the company, today still have the same vision and it's still running on it. so as a venture capitalist, all you can do is help them enable and introduce employees, businesspeople salespeople, but you can't influence the path. >> you talk about unique perspectives how do you account, then for the lack of diversity in founders? do you think about that at all when you interview people? >> absolutely. i mean personally as much as i like to invest in women and

minorities, when you see people walking in most of the time typical white male american male and it also depends on what life experience or professional experiences you have because that's what you carry to your v.c. office or idea that you carry. so as venture capitalists we want to see more diversity, just the volume is very low on the other side. >> a partner at life speed partners, and i look forward to the first person that comes up to you, hey, i saw you on "press: here," as they often do and i'm going to pitch you just the way you want to be pitched. thanks for being with us. the appetite for ipos in 2015 may be in uber. we'll take a look when "press: here" continues.

jim cramer is critical of him, who's been ceo since 2010. here you see him on the floor of the new york stock exchange the day that twitter became a publicly traded company. so what's wrong with him? let's ask that all-around smart guy, all right, well whether you agree or not, what's the market about him? >> first of all, i'm not nearly as critical as others are. this guy game into a mess and

turned it into a $25 billion company. i'm not sure the four of us can do that so it's an incredible accomplishment. having said that he's been a structurally tough position. he's needed a founder ceo like mark zuckerberg who controls the entire company, nor is he the higher gun. he's not even the ceo the board brought in he's an accidental ceo. the board was divided and he became the ceo. you combine that with stock that has fallen 50% in the last 12 months when its peer group is exploding. facebook up 50%, snapchat the market's on fire. you know he's in a tough position, and every quarterly board meeting they are talking about whether he's the right guy going forward, fair or not. >> absolutely. i think he has an expectation problem. as you say, he came in with a massive evaluation great

business, just not that big of business, so the problem for him is how do you reset that. >> that's more our fault than his. everybody's buying twitter, is excited. >> that's one side of it but you have to consider that he's been through five product managers in five years, he switched out his cfo, his coo got rid of his coo. does that concern you? >> yeah great teams don't have that level of turnover. it's just a fact. it shows there's structural problems in the company and that a ceo you don't want to see that level of turnover. >> great teams have a turnover at the beginning to build the great team or just too much turnover? >> there are folks who are good at taking the ball certain ways down the field, folks great getting something off the ground getting to $100 million to $1 billion, but we shouldn't see the types of turnover we've seen in the last 24 to 36 months. >> is there a name you would put forward for next ceo of twitter? or needed to be a next ceo of

twitter? >> i wish i had the perfect name. i think what we'll see is a true professional, a marissa myer type candidate someone who has come out and is ready to go even bigger. twitter might have been a better fit for marissa than yahoo!. yahoo! is very mature. it's not about the products. twitter is the most baffling product i use every day, i love twitter, i tweet 20 30 times a day, it's still worth $25 million. you bring a product ceo like marissa, we could see this being $100 billion. >> she's good at that. >> making products amazing. that's not what yahoo! needs, but it is what twitter needs. >> she's, obviously, the other name in the frame right now. what do you think about her, is she going to make it at yahoo!? >> boy, it's tough. almost mission impossible what she's inherited. you've got the world's best platform from 1997 right, what do you do with that?

she can't go out and buy everything under the sun. she bought what she could, she addressed attrition, which is critical. they have a great engineering team, and she runs aol, she runs aol. it's the same problem. you have to have someone that's just an amazing visionary to take this platform and turn it into something new. >> there's been talk of yahoo! buying something somewhere, even cnn i heard at one point. >> could be but hard to see -- >> 100% agree. >> that's the problem. >> she's got a group of shareholders who want cash back. they don't want to spend it. >> more hires. >> i think her move for maneuver is gone. i think she missed her chance. i think right now might be too late. >> there was a window with alibaba cash but whatever she is, 12th or 18th ceo, i can't keep track. it's hard to do the hail mary very hard. put yahoo!'s chances? >> would you put her in charge of twitter?

>> absolutely absolutely right, this is a case where you've got the momentum got the users, got the right trends. the product's baffling. so much room to grow. >> i mentioned maybe an uber ipo. what would uber do from money from an ipo? it has almost no costs. it's an app, fundamentally. >> uber is interesting, because once uber is up and running in the city it should be epically profitable. in the established cities like san francisco and new york we're going to see margins that make us fall out of our chairs but what they do is spend enormous amount of money entering new markets so they spend a huge amount of money to dominate these markets and it costs more and more money to do that. so until uber has conquered every city on this planet it will consume epic amounts of cash. >> the question is who else wants to put money against uber. that's something we haven't seen

yet. >> competitor you mean? >> competitor. other people see the same opportunity and they decide to throw money on this bomb fire it could be a huge conflagration. uber's bet is it can blow everybody else out of the water up front and it's doing quite well at the moment but not guaranteed it's going to win these cities. >> certainly not guaranteed in china and other countries. when you look at the data in the u.s. it's 10-1 over lyft. 10-1 is such a big gap. i don't mean to be negative lyft is cool too, i love the mustaches and all that but the spending thing worked for uber. >> the more money uber raises more of a rewarding sign to everybody else to stay away. >> just destroy everyone. >> jason with storm ventures thank you for your advice. we hope marissa was listening, as well. "press: here" will be back in just a minute.

that's our show for this week. my thanks to my guests. i'm scott mcgrew. thank you for making us part of your sunday morning.

hello and welcome to "comunidad del valle," i'm damian trujillo, and today a latin rock legend in our studios joins us on your "comunidad del valle". ♪ >> nbc bay area presents "comunidad del valle" with damian trujillo. >> we begin today with a new documentary on the history of the city of san jose. with me here on "comunidad del valle" is the documentary director of the film called "a changing boundaries." my guest here on "comunidad del valle." welcome to the show. >> thank you so much. >> let me first show a quick clip. this is a trailer that you provided for us then we'll talk on the other side, but here's a clip. >> okay. ♪