I presume from the tone of your post that you meant to say "NOT necessarily a good thing..." Nothing personal here, but that statement is pretty silly.
In what circumstances is having less experience a good thing?
Roofing your house? Hope you got lots of buckets.
Arguing a legal case for you? Ever see what happens to the vast majority of people who represent themselves?
Pulling a tooth? Well, I suppose once you are under, your dentist could use vise grips and you couldn't tell.
Flying your airliner? I will take the 65 year old guy over the 25 year old guy any day of the week.
Politician? Sure, I will concede that, as long as they aren't arguing for legislation I want to see passed.
Fixing your car? As long as it is under warranty, you don't have to pay, and aren't worried about being stranded on the roadside.
Database engineer? Well...as long as your livelihood doesn't depend on that database, you are probably okay.
Brain Surgeon? Heck, isn't that why God gave us TWO sides to the brain? If one gets totally balled up because the surgeon mistakes one blood vessel for another, you still have the other side of your body to feed your mouth with. If you are lucky.
Soldier? Do you want your Special Forces guys right out of Boot Camp, or do you want them to have an average of 8-12 years of experience? And why is that?
The bottom line is: Experience is good. It is valuable. It is why people who have done a job for twenty years get more money from companies and are better at it than guys fresh out of high school.
It is a nice populist touch to say "Screw the Ivy Leaguers and professional executives who get fat off of screwing the poor union workers with high school diplomas" but in reality, your claim holds no water at all.
None.
This is not to say a breath of fresh air and a new perspective is not important and/or valuable, but if you are going to make a meal out of a breath of fresh air, you are going to go hungry.
As I said, this is nothing personal against you. I simply think that statement is completely and totally unsupported by reality, which is why we are in such dire straits with a person like Barack Obama running the government.
And by the way: Reagan was an accomplished politician and very successful governor long before he ran for President. The people who called him a 'B-grade movie star' thought that someone like George McGovern or Adali Stevenson would make a great president.
Your points are all well taken but I clearly said in some instances having no experience can be a good thing. You bring up situations where obviously you do want experience but this is a situation where I’ll grant him a waiver.
Again, why are you so concerned about this when these companies already have failed? it’s like getting upset at a plastic surgeon resident doing a procedure on a corpse. In this case, this kid might be able to resurrect a dead company.
btw, the government is rife with incompetent hacks who are given positions they don’t deserve due to nepotism, frienship, contributions etc and they are never visible. AT least this guy is front and center. Where is your anger at that? Maybe it’s not there because you aren’t aware of it. And if you don’t like this, the best advice is to run for office and do what you can to change it. But the cold hard facts is that NO ONE really wants to touch this issue and thus why this guy has the position he has. But I guess you and others want to see him fail.