Globalization. Destroying America One Employee At A Time

[Obama 2012 1,714]

More hurt is coming in the future.

Of course are tariffs the answer either? That's not good for the economy we're in either.

We're really stuck between a rock and a hard place here on the answers available to us.

---------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704821704576270783611823972.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

U.S. multinational corporations, the big brand-name companies that employ a fifth of all American workers, have been hiring abroad while cutting back at home, sharpening the debate over globalization's effect on the U.S. economy.

The companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million, new data from the U.S. Commerce Department show. That's a big switch from the 1990s, when they added jobs everywhere: 4.4 million in the U.S. and 2.7 million abroad.

In all, U.S. multinationals employed 21.1 million people at home in 2009 and 10.3 million elsewhere, including increasing numbers of higher-skilled foreign workers.

The trend highlights the growing importance of other economies, particularly in rapidly growing Asia, to big U.S. businesses such as General Electric Co., Caterpillar Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The data also underscore the vulnerability of the U.S. economy, particularly at a time when unemployment is high and wages aren't rising. Jobs at multinationals tend to pay above-average wages and, for decades, sustained the American middle class.

Some on the left view the job trend as reason for the U.S. government to keep companies from easily exporting work overseas and importing products back to the U.S. or to more aggressively match job-creating policies used in some foreign markets. More business-friendly analysts view the same data as the sign that the U.S. may be losing its appeal as a place for big companies to invest and hire.

"It's definitely something to worry about," says economist Matthew Slaughter, who served as an adviser to former president George W. Bush. Mr. Slaughter, now at Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business, is among those who think the U.S. has lost some allure.

A decade ago, Mr. Slaughter, who consults for several big companies and trade associations, drew attention with his observation that "for every one job that U.S. multinationals created abroad...they created nearly two U.S. jobs in their [u.S.-based] parents." That was true in the 1990s, he says. It is no longer.

The Commerce Department's summary of its latest annual survey shows that in 2009, a recession year in which multinationals' sales and capital spending fell, the companies cut 1.2 million, or 5.3%, of their workers in the U.S. and 100,000, or 1.5%, of those abroad.

The growth of their overseas work forces is a sensitive point for U.S. companies. Many of them don't disclose how many of their workers are abroad. And some who do won't talk about it. "We will decline to comment on future hiring or head-count numbers," says Kimberly Pineda, director of corporate public relations for Oracle Corp.

Those who will talk say the trend, in some instances, reflects the rising productivity of U.S. factories and, in general, a world in which the U.S. represents a smaller piece of a bigger whole. "As a greater percentage of our sales have been outside the U.S., we have seen our work force outside the U.S. grow," says Jim Dugan, spokesman for construction-equipment maker Caterpillar, which has added jobs more rapidly abroad than in the U.S.

The Commerce Department's totals mask significant differences among the big companies. Some are shrinking employment at home and abroad while increasing productivity. Others are hiring everywhere. Still others are cutting jobs at home while adding them abroad.

At some companies, hiring to sell or make products abroad means more research or design jobs in the U.S. At others, overseas hiring simply shifts production away from the U.S. The government plans to release details about various industries and countries in November.

While hiring, firing, acquiring and divesting in recent years, GE has been reducing the overall size of its work force both domestically and internationally. Between 2005 and 2010, the industrial conglomerate cut 1,000 workers overseas and 28,000 in the U.S.

Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chief executive, says these cuts don't reflect a relentless search for the lowest wages, or at least they don't any longer. "We've globalized around markets, not cheap labor. The era of globalization around cheap labor is over," he said in a speech in Washington last month. "Today we go to Brazil, we go to China, we go to India, because that's where the customers are."

In 2000, 30% of GE's business was overseas; today, 60% is. In 2000, 46% of GE employees were overseas; today, 54% are.

Mr. Immelt says GE did or will add 16,000 U.S. jobs in manufacturing or high-tech services in 2010 and 2011, including 150 in Erie, Pa., making locomotives for China, and 400 at a smart-grid technology center in Atlanta.

Caterpillar increasingly relies on foreign markets for its sales. It has been adding workers world-wide—except for global layoffs in 2009, amid the recession—but is hiring much faster abroad. Between 2005 and 2010, its work force grew by 3,400 workers, or 7.8%, in the U.S. and 15,900, or nearly 39%, overseas.

Mr. Dugan, the company spokesman, says Caterpillar still does most of its research and development in Peoria, Ill., where it is based, and that "a little over half" of its planned $3 billion in capital spending this year is earmarked for facilities in the U.S.

Several high-tech companies have been expanding their work forces both domestically and abroad, but doing much more of their hiring outside the U.S.

Oracle, which makes business hardware and software, added twice as many workers overseas over the past five years as in the U.S. At the beginning of the 2000s, it had more workers at home than abroad; at the end of 2010, 63% of its employees were overseas. The company says it still does 80% of its R&D in the U.S.

Similarly, Cisco Systems Inc., which makes networking gear, has been creating jobs much more rapidly abroad. Over the past five years, it has added 10,900 employees in the U.S. and 21,350 outside it. At the beginning of the decade, 26% of its work force was abroad; at the end, 46% was.

Microsoft is an exception. It cut its head count globally last year, but over the past five years, the software giant has added more jobs in the U.S. (15,300) than abroad (13,000). About 60% of Microsoft's employees are in the U.S.

While small, young companies are vital to U.S. economic growth, big multinationals remain a major force. A report by McKinsey Global Institute, the think-tank arm of the big consulting firm, estimates that multinationals account for 23% of the nation's private-sector output and 48% of its exports of goods.

These companies are more exposed to global competition than many smaller ones, but also more capable of taking advantage of globalization by shifting production, and thus can be a harbinger of things to come.

The economists who advised McKinsey on its report dubbed multinationals "canaries in the coal mine." They include Mr. Slaughter and Clinton White House veterans Laura Tyson, of the University of California, Berkeley, and Martin Baily, of the Brookings Institution.

They warn that a combination of the U.S. tax code, the declining state of U.S. infrastructure, the quality of the country's education system and barriers to the immigration of skilled workers may be making the U.S. less attractive to multinationals. "We can excoriate them" and also listen to them, Mr. Slaughter says of the multinationals. "But we can't just excoriate them."

Other observers see the trend as a failure of U.S. policies to counter aggressive foreign governments. "All the incentives in the global economy—an overvalued U.S. dollar, lower corporate taxes abroad, very aggressive investment incentives abroad, government pressure abroad versus none at home—are such as to steadily move the production of tradable goods and the provision of tradable services out of the U.S.," says Clyde Prestowitz, a former trade negotiator turned critic of U.S. trade policy. "That has been having, and will continue to have, a negative impact on U.S. employment and wages."

Edited April 20, 2011 by Paul and Vanessa

[^_^ 5,021]

"We've globalized around markets, not cheap labor. The era of globalization around cheap labor is over" ...

BS.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

...a combination of the U.S. tax code, the declining state of U.S. infrastructure, the quality of the country's education system and barriers to the immigration of skilled workers may be making the U.S. less attractive to multinationals.

And we're talking about cutting back even more on infrastructure and education. Excellent plan!

[^_^ 5,021]

And we're talking about cutting back even more on infrastructure and education. Excellent plan!

He may have a certain comical quality to him, but Candidate Trump doesn't advocate either.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And we're talking about cutting back even more on infrastructure and education. Excellent plan!

Infrastructure is hardly the problem.

We use every way possible to trasport goods from point A to point B. Rail, Road, and Air. It all gets there in a timely manner as well.

Overall education isn't the problem either. It's the 'no child left behind' mentality we have in this country. Some people are talented, others are not. We look down upon people in this society who are stuck working at Wal-Mart of McDonalds, but at the end of the day, we need those people in those roles, just like we need the executive who decides to expand his company and create more jobs. Just as we need the farmers, the scientists, etc. Everyone has their role and everyone understands the role they are in. The system does not. The system wants everyone education, everyone to go to college, etc. when it's just not feasible. Take the brightest minds and get them away from those who aren't on the same level.

I know we don't like to discriminate in this country, but education is one place where we need to. We're not talking on a basis of race or creed either. We are talking on a basis of overall individual capabilities in certain areas. Some are good at science, some are good at math, some are good at both. Use that and focus our education accordingly.

[^_^ 5,021]

You are so smart.

[jundp 191]

The system wants everyone education, everyone to go to college, etc. when it's just not feasible. Take the brightest minds and get them away from those who aren't on the same level.

I know we don't like to discriminate in this country, but education is one place where we need to. We're not talking on a basis of race or creed either. We are talking on a basis of overall individual capabilities in certain areas. Some are good at science, some are good at math, some are good at both. Use that and focus our education accordingly.

Wrong. When you mix students of different abilities together in one classroom, all the students can succeed. The ones who are brighter benefit from learning how to interact with those who perhaps aren't as bright. As well, those same students learn how to adapt. Because in the real world, people think, learn, and move at different levels, regardless of what industry they're in. The slower students learn valuable critical thinking, discussion, and practice skills from students who are brighter. They also learn that they can set higher goals for themselves.

Bright students who are constantly told they are elite will continue to think this without necessarily further challenging themselves. They also do not always recognize their limits.

Slower students often get pigeon-holed into a category because they (and the people around them) think they "can't" do something. At least through secondary education students should be well-rounded and study all the disciplines.

And the NCLB Act was total and utter ####### because it prevents teachers from actually teaching and altering their lessons to their particular students.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Wrong. When you mix students of different abilities together in one classroom, all the students can succeed. The ones who are brighter benefit from learning how to interact with those who perhaps aren't as bright. As well, those same students learn how to adapt. Because in the real world, people think, learn, and move at different levels, regardless of what industry they're in. The slower students learn valuable critical thinking, discussion, and practice skills from students who are brighter. They also learn that they can set higher goals for themselves.

Bright students who are constantly told they are elite will continue to think this without necessarily further challenging themselves. They also do not always recognize their limits.

Slower students often get pigeon-holed into a category because they (and the people around them) think they "can't" do something. At least through secondary education students should be well-rounded and study all the disciplines.

And the NCLB Act was total and utter ####### because it prevents teachers from actually teaching and altering their lessons to their particular students.

You're joking, right?

When you keep more capable students mixed with less capable students on equal footing, you are creating an environment that is unfair to those who are smarter and should be exceeding the level they are at. If you want them to interact with the lesser capable students, then have them do tutoring sessions, etc. Do not keep them in the same classroom all the time however. This is why Junior High and High Schools have AP classes. Sometimes that's not even enough though when you get down to it.

The brightest minds should be treated as the brightest minds. Not in an 'elite' way, but in way that further their education along and separates them from an environment that 'dumbs them down' than what their potential is.

Some are capabe and some are not. The problem with our society is we fail to recognize this and we wonder why we are falling behind in certain areas. It's because we mix all students and try to create an equal learning environment.

At the end of the day as well, what's wrong with letting a bright student know they are a little bit better than everyone else? After all, we are willing to do so each and every day with athletes and movie stars. So why not with people who actually matter? We just have to remmeber, there's a difference in letting someone know they are good at something and making them think they are a god. Doing the latter is when you get into trouble.

[Amby 490]

You're joking, right?

When you keep more capable students mixed with less capable students on equal footing, you are creating an environment that is unfair to those who are smarter and should be exceeding the level they are at. If you want them to interact with the lesser capable students, then have them do tutoring sessions, etc. Do not keep them in the same classroom all the time however. This is why Junior High and High Schools have AP classes. Sometimes that's not even enough though when you get down to it.

The brightest minds should be treated as the brightest minds. Not in an 'elite' way, but in way that further their education along and separates them from an environment that 'dumbs them down' than what their potential is.

Some are capabe and some are not. The problem with our society is we fail to recognize this and we wonder why we are falling behind in certain areas. It's because we mix all students and try to create an equal learning environment.

At the end of the day as well, what's wrong with letting a bright student know they are a little bit better than everyone else? After all, we are willing to do so each and every day with athletes and movie stars. So why not with people who actually matter? We just have to remmeber, there's a difference in letting someone know they are good at something and making them think they are a god. Doing the latter is when you get into trouble.

I don't think she is. She's a high school teacher and has been a teacher for many years.

[Zero Sum 305]

Oh Lord.

[The Dude 206]

I don't think she is. She's a high school teacher and has been a teacher for many years.

Ummm Amby, you're questioning Paul. You know he knows everything and is a scholar on all topics.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think she is. She's a high school teacher and has been a teacher for many years.

I actually agree with Paul on this one. I was always bored out of my mind when I had to share a classroom with "normal" people.

[The Dude 206]

I actually agree with Paul on this one. I was always bored out of my mind when I had to share a classroom with "normal" people.

So you are announcing that you are in fact not a normal human and in fact, a freak?

Edited April 20, 2011 by The Dude

[mawilson 2,133]

So you are announcing that you are in fact not a normal human and in fact, a freak?

Damn right!