Chapter 7 HEADLINES: How to Destroy American Jobs

This article argues that offshoring by multinational companies supports an increase in jobs at home, and that these jobs would be lost by policies to restrict offshoring.

Deep in the president’s budget released Monday [February 1, 2010] appear a set of proposals headed “Reform U.S. International Tax System.” If these proposals are enacted, U.S.-based multinational firms will face $122.2 billion in tax increases over the next decade. This is a natural follow-up to President Obama’s sweeping plan announced last May [2009] entitled “Leveling the Playing Field: Curbing Tax Havens and Removing Tax Incentives for Shifting Jobs Overseas.”

The fundamental assumption behind these proposals is that U.S. multinationals expand abroad only to “export” jobs out of the country. Thus, taxing their foreign operations more would boost tax revenues here and create desperately needed U.S. jobs. This is simply wrong. These tax increases would not create American jobs, they would destroy them.

Academic research, including most recently that done by Harvard’s Mihir Desai and Fritz Foley and University of Michigan’s James Hines, has consistently found that expansion abroad by U.S. multinationals tends to support jobs based in the U.S. More investment and employment abroad are strongly associated with more investment and employment in American parent companies.

When parent firms based in the U.S. hire workers in their foreign affiliates, the skills and occupations of these workers are often complementary; they aren’t substitutes. More hiring abroad stimulates more U.S. hiring. For example, as Wal-Mart has opened stores abroad, it has created hundreds of U.S. jobs for workers to coordinate the distribution of goods worldwide. The expansion of these foreign affiliates—whether to serve foreign customers, or to save costs—also expands the overall scale of multinationals.

Expanding abroad also allows firms to refine their scope of activities. For example, exporting routine production means that employees in the U.S. can focus on higher value-added tasks such as R&D, marketing and general management. The total impact of this process is much richer than an overly simplistic story of exporting jobs. But the ultimate proof lies in the empirical evidence.

Consider total employment spanning 1988 through 2007 (the most recent year of data available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). Over that time, employment in affiliates rose by 5.3 million—to 11.7 million from 6.4 million. Over that same period, employment in U.S. parent companies increased by nearly as much—4.3 million—to 22 million from 17.7 million. Indeed, research repeatedly shows that foreign affiliate expansion tends to expand U.S. parent activity… .

The major policy challenge facing the U.S. today is not just to create jobs, but to create high-paying private-sector jobs linked to investment and trade. Which firms can create these jobs? U.S.-based multinationals. They—along with similarly performing U.S. affiliates of foreign-based multinationals—have long been among the strongest companies in the U.S. economy.

These two groups of firms accounted for the majority of the post-1995 acceleration in U.S. productivity growth, the foundation of rising standards of living for everyone. They tend to create high-paying jobs—27.5 million in 2007… .And these firms also conducted $240.2 billion in research and development, a remarkable 89.2% of all U.S. private-sector R&D.

To climb out of the recession, we need to create millions of the kinds of jobs that U.S. multinationals tend to create. Economic policy on all fronts should be encouraging job growth by these firms. The proposed international-tax reforms do precisely the opposite.

Source: Matthew J. Slaughter, “How to Destroy American Jobs,” Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2010, p. A17.

Questions to Consider

After reading How to Destroy American Jobs, consider the question(s) below. Then “submit” your response.

Question

aZmnaJF6XCuvPqazWSutQWZ+ol4ePyKSovceSOXxn0BG/U/S/inUBPOAu/1dGYMP4DjW9p7wytW3f0qzZt4VWrt7LW/fzUVqgjfZ7C5UUPtbjfONRMAu1nseGY1rXRXbNVPO3QlD2eg=
Answers will vary. One reason could be the failure to account for job quality. When manufacturing workers are displaced by offshoring their jobs, they frequently find other work but it is at a lower wage than their manufacturing job.)

Question

NPfd/c7w8U6sIXSrvqV/CoUhN6KgFsnULfK3kvbTaEq8MdcTlOj/+phYknol9cH9X5jduYnU/xwA/Io7SjwgPLZz+zxmt3CyNXd413ABRWjOG+NppUMt06Nx7aZUaXs7b9QSEj6l1G8V0Kej7RWri+g7b+CgOQZpkX2W3Lx0/CdzQ+IcR2O0/zH8s8yMFZTeTsFFpB0MISzDpUpTFUK53hOeMEmlHVr2WY3+DuKokwRn0rQ2ct6fg2bRKyW1gsupmEvmeHX6WUTHh0uqeluIOOgxox23FT5xT2619FlJB0D17kqpHSdZeiH6iYsR4pFjhWqF/7M5KcHIc323Cnm5lGgPeeQ=
Answers will vary. One example would be a multinational firm shifting low-skilled labor intensive manufacturing abroad. This would likely be correlated with higher-skilled research and development domestic jobs with the parent company.)