Skip to main content

For more than two decades, U.S. companies have been creating vast numbers of new jobs—overseas. Even as Americans suffered under nearly double-digit levels of unemployment in 2010, those companies were creating 1.4 million new jobs abroad and fewer than a million in the States. A new survey shows they are still at it.

More than three-fourths of the jobs created in the past two years by 35 of the biggest companies were outside the United States:

Those companies, which include Wal-Mart Stores Inc., [...] International Paper Co., Honeywell International Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc., boosted their employment at home by 3.1%, or 113,000 jobs, between 2009 and 2011, the same rate of increase as the nation's other employers. But they also added more than 333,000 jobs in their far-flung—and faster-growing— foreign operations.

The companies included in the analysis were the largest of those that disclose their U.S. and non-U.S. employment in annual securities filings. All of them have at least 50,000 employees. Collectively, they employed roughly 6.4 million workers world-wide last year, up 7.7% from two years earlier. Over the same period, the total number of U.S. jobs increased 3.1%, according to the Labor Department.

For instance, the giant retailer Wal Mart added 100,000 jobs in 2010-2011. Zero of them were in the U.S. Honeywell International cut its U.S. workforce by 1,000 in the same period and added 11,000 jobs abroad. Kraft Foods lopped 4,000 workers off its U.S. payroll and hired 33,000 overseas.

This should be no surprise to anyone. In the first decade of the 21st Century, U.S.-based companies whacked 2.9 million jobs from their U.S. payrolls and added 2.4 million abroad. In the previous decade, they added jobs in both places, 4.4 million in the U.S. and 2.7 million elsewhere.

Not an encouraging trend. And one that is exacerbated by free trade pacts that do far too little to protect U.S. workers while shielding foreign nations from penalties that should accrue from violating what protections do exist in those agreements. And yet, as proved by the Obama administration's pressing ahead with a trade agreement with Colombia, where union organizers are still regularly murdered with impunity—51 in 2011, 4000 since 1990, according to the AFL-CIO Solidarity Center—the U.S. government continues to fail to effectively address the off-shoring of jobs.

When efforts are made, roadblocks are encountered. Many companies howling for a tax discount so they can repatriate profits earned abroad at a far lower rate than they would otherwise pay refuse to say how many employees they have in U.S. compared with those abroad.

Just knowing, however, will mean nothing if the U.S. fails to implement policies that reverse this long-standing trend. A piecemeal approach would be better than nothing. Ending tax breaks for companies that off-shore jobs, for instance. But a full-bore industrial plan—the kind that all our biggest trading partners have implemented to grow their economies and protect their workers—would be much better. Why having such a plan remains anathema to so many U.S. leaders has only two reasonable explanations: Either they are clueless or they prefer things the way they are because it butters their bread.

The globalization driving this off-shoring may indeed be inevitable. Under the right circumstances, globalization can be a good thing. We have, after all, been undergoing a kind of globalization for at least half a millennium.

But those right circumstances aren't what we have now. Instead, we have a corporatist mindset that exploits workers abroad and tells us that to keep jobs here, like those at the rescued General Motors, workers must accept lower pay and reduced benefits. Also their unions must be eviscerated, their protections from unsafe and unhealthy conditions diluted or eliminated, their cushions from periods of unemployment weakened and government services cut back. In addition, those workers should support tax cuts for the corporations and people who tell them these other things must happen.

We need a lot more leaders who will say hell no to all that.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 08:54 AM PDT.

Also republished by Progressive Hippie and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for this (7+ / 0-)

    There is nothing ethical about sacrificing local economies for the sake of profiteering. Companies which do this should receive no special benefits or protections or assistance from our government, which in theory is of the people and for the people, but in practice is barely a representative democracy. It's clear who they really serve.

    Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor. - from The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

    by ZhenRen on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:07:51 AM PDT

    •  American companies should be required (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mannie, JesseCW, divineorder

      to maintain a large percentage of their labor in the United States.

      Everywhere you will find that the wealth of the wealthy springs from the poverty of the poor. - from The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin

      by ZhenRen on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:21:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about labor as a percentage of sales (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        in any given country?

        BTW, the US got very, very rich by importing low labor content raw materials and exporting high labor content finished goods.

        The shoe is now on a different foot and we are squealing...

        •  'Job creators' create jobs...just not in the US... (0+ / 0-)

          so why are we giving them tax cuts again?

          •  Because "they" control the government. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radhika, a2nite

            There has been a class war going on since the Reagan years and they have won every battle. The workers are just now waking up and realizing what has happened.

            A strong and vibrant middle class is atypical of historical conditions. We are just going back to the norm - 1% having 90% of the world wealth.

            •  It's our job to make it part of our human (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Claudius Bombarnac

              evolution, not an anomaly of history, especially if we believe in our own efficacy.

              Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Island"s, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

              by judyms9 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:35:07 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Tax cuts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Balto

            I agree with the fact that we should at the very least eliminate some of their tax breaks.

            However, as a counterpoint, companies often hire where the customers are at.   Prolonged high unemployment in the U.S. means the customers are not here.

      •  I don't know. (0+ / 0-)

        If they're opening foreign operations and hiring people to provide goods and services for those foreign countries, that sounds fair to me.

        If they're doing it for cheap labor and sending the products back to the US to undercut US workers, that doesn't sound fair.

        If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

        by Bush Bites on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:03:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let's be honest (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ZhenRen

          Corporations now only hire in places without unions, sub standard wages, no workers comp, and where they can dump waste wherever they want.  

          That's why those jobs aren't coming back.  The Republicans are right when they say end regulation, end the minimum wage, no unions, and then the jobs will come back.  Because nobody is going to hire Americans until they can do what they do in China here.

          "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

          by overclocking on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 12:52:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Setting aside global warming and environmental (3+ / 0-)

    effects, globalization will run into the reality of peak oil sooner or later.  The lower costs of production in countries with lower wages and without enforced environmental regulations will be eaten up by the higher cost of transport.  It will simply become too expensive to ship cheaply made goods across the Pacific and then ship empty shipping containers back.

    Quite aside from the need for jobs in the U.S., we need to maintain the production capacity to produce our needed food, technology, and medicine.

  •  Fixed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, divineorder

    We need a lot more any leaders who will say hell no to all that.

  •  Jeff Immelt...Jobs Task Force Chairman..... (4+ / 0-)

    you betcha!

  •  From the article... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Claudius Bombarnac
    Economists who study global labor patterns say companies are creating jobs outside the U.S. mostly to pursue sales there, and not to cut costs by shifting work previously performed in the U.S., as has sometimes been the case.

    "If you want to capture market share in China, you're going to have to hire lots of locals," says Arie Lewin, a professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business who has studied outsourcing and offshoring. "You just can't export that stuff."

    I'm unsure what precisely we're supposed to be outraged about.
    •  This probably falls under the category (6+ / 0-)

      of lies that Captains of Commerce tell to justify what they do.  Granted, there are some expanding markets offshore, but someone ought to follow up on these statements and measure exactly what is going on.

      At least they're moving on to a new lie, the last one -  "No qualified US workers" was getting a little stale.

    •  The only reason GM's sales were high last year (5+ / 0-)

      was because of Chinese buyers. China makes 3 times as many cars and buys 2 times as many as the US. GM was investing billions in China at the very same time their factories were getting bailed out in the US.

      The US markets are tapped out with most people under too much debt from a decade long spending spree. Even Apple is selling more in China. The US is no longer the driver of the world's GDP. That role has switched to China, India and the BRICS.

      2012 Beijing Auto Show: New trends, designs reflect Chinese buying power

      China or bust for struggling Western automakers

      A dozen years after U.S.-based General Motors opened its first Chinese joint venture production facility, GM chairman and CEO Dan Akerson announced here at this year’s show his company’s plans to expand its Chinese dealership network from 2,900 in 2011 to 3,500 by the end of this year, and nearly double GM’s local production capacity to 5 million cars a year by 2016.

      “We fundamentally believe in the strength of the Chinese market,” Akerson said, backing that up further by announcing GM’s plans to add one new Cadillac luxury model to the Chinese market each year through 2016.
      ...
      Yes, Virginia, you can buy a “Chinese” car in Canada

      New models like the Buick LaCrosse and Verano, Nissan Versa Sedan, Porsche Panamera, and Volkswagen Jetta and Passat — to name only a few — can be bought by Canadians, but each were created to appeal to Chinese buyers first.

    •  A few issues... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

      To the extent the foreign jobs represent new markets not otherwise available there's no objection IMO.

      If the capital profits return to the US and are distributed via shareholder dividends, new domestic investments, lower domestic prices, better domestic benefits, etc., again, no objection.

      If the investments overseas are "incented" or protected in any way by US tax exemptions, shelters, or preferences and the taxpayer is subsidizing action that does not add value to the taxpayers, or worse, hurts American workers, that's a serious problem.

      While multinationals are focused offshore for cheap labor to the current or future detriment of the US economy that necessitates a counter public policy strategy for American workers that would either create new jobs here or share wealth created offshore down further into the labor force.

      There's lots of other issues but that's just off the top of my head.

      Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

      by kck on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:46:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But they've outsourced back office work, (6+ / 0-)

      accounting and data entry for US corporations, entry-level law office work for American clients, writing and editing of US publications, and IT work for companies in the US market.

      How can anyone believe they are outsourcing jobs in order to produce goods for the overseas market when what is "produced" is sent back to the US?

      It's a damned lie, and anyone with good sense should see it. The only reason we lost those jobs is that they are cheaper for the corporate bottom line when done by people in other countries.

      "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

      by Brooke In Seattle on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:56:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed... (0+ / 0-)

      This is alot less about outsourcing than it is about US companies successfully competing for customers in places that are growing faster.

      Most companies look at China, SE Asia, etc... as a source of future customers now, not just a source of labor. Of course they'd start putting salespeople, support people, logistics in those companies.

      If anything, this is a bit of a good story. It shows that US companies are being successful at competing for customers overseas.

      Now, if the cited article had focused entirely on outsourcing, then we should be having a different conversation. But saying "Wal-Mart didn't cut jobs here but added 100k new ones near it's new customers." isn't a reason to be mad at Wal-Mart. It's a reason to be mad at the conditions here that led Wal-Mart to believe it won't be able to grow it's business much more here in the US (or at least not enough to hire new people).

  •  Solved by the Framers. (7+ / 0-)
    Article. 1. Section. 8. _Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 09:48:36 AM PDT

    •  Don't FTA'S supersede that clause? ;-( (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, divineorder, Utahrd

      Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

      by kck on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:36:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Who has the best luxury box tickets? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kck

        We don't have a free trade agreement with China.  The duty rate on some products from China is over 30%.

        Do we want to raise duty rates on products made in progressive, peaceful Canada?  Or on Mexico, thereby creating more pressure to emigrate to the US?

        We can raise duty rates, but then that could raise prices to US consumers.

        We can raise duty rates, but then that would cause job losses in US export industries.  (Like, um, the one I work in)

        So we will just make our trade policy based on which company gives the best NFL luxury box tickets to congressmen.

  •  This is one thing that masks the real (4+ / 0-)

    wage disparities.

    For instance, we're told that the CEO of Apple makes some 3,000 times what Apples average workers do.

    That's only because production is outsourced to China.  The truth is, he makes over 60,000 times what the working people who manufacture Apple products do.

    Your vote is your consent.

    by JesseCW on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:15:00 AM PDT

    •  Microsoft? Dell? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9

      Apple seems to be the whipping boy of the month, but all of the issues are the same for the entire industry.

      The consistency with which one company is continuously painted as the guilty party in labor evils has the hallmarks of a smear campaign.

      All of them must correct their practices, but that won't happen if we pressure only one company. The only logical result that could arise from forcing only one company to change, but not the others, is that we'd reduce competition for the others.

      I can't help but wonder why all attention is being diverted from the other culprits. If we want to fix the problem, we have to fix the whole problem and not just stick a bandaid on one elbow.

  •  Isn't Apple the "American Dream" come true? (0+ / 0-)
  •  To these global multinationals... (6+ / 0-)

    ...,in many cases with "HQs" in tax heavens like Dubai and the Cayman Islands, workers are a "fungible commodity".

    BTW, that is what Donald Rumsfeld called troops.

    These sort of people see human beings as "things" and the world as their playground.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 10:56:07 AM PDT

  •  MB - I agree we need an industrial policy (3+ / 0-)

    Everything about our tax policy, regulatory policy, and trade policies are somehow designed to favor imports and penalize exports. We need a bipartisan group to take a hard look at all of these and propose something that at least makes our policies favor exports and is neutral to imports.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:11:29 AM PDT

  •  The 'US-based' part of these multinationals is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99

    really a formality as I'm sure you know.

  •  May be OK. Devil in details. (3+ / 0-)

    We have to remember: most of the world is poorer than the USA. The poorer parts of the world should be adding jobs faster than the USA.

    The question we should be asking is not whether the USA is succeeding at keeping poor people in other countries poor by winning a fight for a bigger slice of a limited pie. Instead the questions we should be asking are:

    * Are we (and other countries) creating as many jobs as possible--growing the pie for everyone? (It's pretty obvious we aren't--austerity, Krugman, etc.)

    * Are we keeping the safety net strong to protect Americans suffering from the inevitable displacement of some US jobs to poorer countries? (Again--it's obvious we're not.)

    * Are we helping Americans get the skills and education they need to (a) get high-paying service jobs that can't be outsourced, or (b) keep manufacturing productivity high (see: Germany), so our high-wage manufacturing can compete with low-wage, low-productivity countries? (And again, the answer is no.)

    * Are we ensuring that Americans with jobs actually earn a living wage? (You guessed it--no.)

    Thank God for Obamacare. At least that will ensure that most Americans have somewhat better access to healthcare--unless Romney wins in November.

    Still, it is quite discouraging that our choice of political parties is limited to Dumb and Dumber. The HeyMikey Democratic 2012 Platform:

    * A new WPA and CCC.

    * A boost in the minimum wage to 125% of poverty level. (And a boost of the official poverty level to a realistic level.)

    * Overtime kicks in at 30 hours per week. (To encourage new hires instead of more hours for existing workers.)

    * Truly universal health care, not just almost universal health insurance.

    * Greatly expanded education and training benefits for the unemployed.

    * Extended emergency unemployment cash benefits.

    * Radical action to expand access to college and vocational school without taking on crippling debt.

    * New EPA regs to crack down on greenhouse emissions, prompting massive new private investment in clean energy. (I'd like to see a new greenhouse law, but politically that's just not gonna happen.)

    Why any of this is now considered beyond the political pale is a mystery to me. Fucking Democratic cowards. Still, they are clearly the Lesser Evil, and I will vote for them in November. Fuck.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:15:40 AM PDT

    •  Good list. Add lowered retirement age. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey

      I remember back in the late 50's and early 60's when people were talking about the benefits of the skyrocketing productivity that was occurring. We were looking to have 30 hour work weeks and be able to retire at 50. Unfortunately, the corporatist's and financiers took all the gains from productivity.

      The only possible way to reduce unemployment with today's productivity is to work fewer hours. Unfortunately, current ecomomic models require constant increase of goods and services to keep unemployment down. The environment can no longer handle this.

    •  It's Complicated, But (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      judyms9

      This:

      "The question we should be asking is not whether the USA is succeeding at keeping poor people in other countries poor by winning a fight for a bigger slice of a limited pie."

      ... is certainly not happening. The size of the global economy has exploded in the last ten years, while the domestic economy in the U.S. has stayed stagnant ...

      And the size of the pie for 99% of Americans has shrunk dramatically.

      The average working American family is a loser in this equation.

      "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

      by bink on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:29:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes & no. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AaronInSanDiego

        Most of the people in the world whose incomes have grown a lot are STILL a lot poorer than the average working American family.

        Understand, I'm not saying that the 1%ers and corporations are great. Surely they should pay more of their exorbitant profits in taxes here, to support the stuff I outlined above. But I am saying we should not begrudge anybody, anywhere, who's poorer than us, getting an opportunity to provide a better life for their family.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:30:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A great platform, so please run. This could (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HeyMikey

      be the year of the Dark Horse Party.

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Island"s, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:48:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A very good list. n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:32:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Given how far some of those goals are from (0+ / 0-)

      where we currently are, I'm wondering what the downsides might be. Those are dramatic changes which would require quite a bit of time for the economy to adapt to. And some might lead to quite a bit of inflation. Particularly, the 30 hour/week threshold for overtime pay. The effect will be quite different depending on the sector of the economy locations of the businesses.

      "Okay, until next time. Keep sending me your questions, and I will make fun of you... I mean, answer them." - Strong Bad

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 04:59:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Time; inflation. (0+ / 0-)
        Those are dramatic changes which would require quite a bit of time for the economy to adapt to.
        Actually, I think most of them would make great short-term stimulus. Better to do them quickly and perhaps phase them out later (WPA, CCC) than phase them in slowly.
        some might lead to quite a bit of inflation. Particularly, the 30 hour/week threshold for overtime pay.
        Krugman and others have been calling for slightly higher inflation. And if inflation should be higher than anticipated--well, the Fed knows how to fix that, with higher interest rates. The problem we have now is that unemployment is too high with rates near zero, so further rate-cutting as stimulus is not an option.

        New hires instead of overtime for existing workers could actually reduce inflation, as the company's per-hour costs would go down. But of course if the company has to add health insurance and office space, then the net costs could be up. But we should not get bogged down in the details--corporate profits are at record highs, and corporate cash-on-hand is the highest it's been in 55 years. They can afford to spread some of that money around without it necessarily affecting the retail price of their finished products or services.

        "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

        by HeyMikey on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 10:42:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'd really have to see more details to condemn it. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sky Net

    If the jobs are to provide products and services for those foreign countries, I have no problem with that.

    If they're building things to be exported back to the US, then I'm against it.

    This reminds me of Repubs blaming Kerry for Heinz  opening a plant in Europe, as if they're making ketchup in Europe and sending tanker ships of ketchup back to the US for sale.

    If Obama doesn't deserve credit for getting Bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger, Bin Laden doesn't deserve the blame for 9-11 because he didn't fly the planes.

    by Bush Bites on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 11:58:21 AM PDT

  •  This is why the response to the "job creators" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany

    claim by GOP, CEOs, etc. should be:  WHERE are those jobs being created?  

    Hell no to tax breaks for people and corporations who create jobs overseas while cutting jobs for American citizens here at home!!!!

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:06:06 PM PDT

  •  Walmart can't create any more US jobs -- (5+ / 0-)

    there are no more "mom & pop" stores for it to unfairly compete against and beat.

    •  Marie, as proof of my willingness to act against (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vzfk3s, Marie

      those who hold corporate interests above the interests of society, I refuse to shop at Walmart.

      I could use the extra 20% cost required to patronize local businesses. It would help pay for supplemental health insurance.  I'm unwilling to take the risk that a few dollars in savings means riding in a crate, down the road.

      •  Many people have no choice -- it's Walmart (0+ / 0-)

        or a fifty mile drive.  Find that with careful shopping -- which mostly means not buying junk -- and including quality, Walmart is expensive.  

        Raised to shop local and patronize independents.    Local chain supermarkets and restaurants preferable to larger ones.  It's gotten tougher to do over the years, almost never so difficult that Walmart or McDonalds sees me.  

  •  Right 'cause it will cut into their profit margin (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, happymisanthropy

    Americans we just can't quit slavery. Evil rich 1% don't need us 2 work 4 them 2 make money.

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

  •  This is good news (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Says Who

    U.S. companies expanding overseas is a good thing.  They're taking advantage of markets that are growing more strongly than our own.  This supports jobs back home.  From the article:

    The data show that global companies, aided by overseas revenue, are faring better than purely domestic companies during the economic recovery. Nearly 60% of the revenue growth between 2009 and 2011 at the companies in the Journal's analysis came from outside the U.S.
    UPS is adding jobs overseas because they're filling a market demand.  Does anybody really think that if UPS doesn't provide express delivery services in other countries that somehow they'll employ more Americans?  Quite the opposite.  UPS needs more employees in their headquarters to manage their far flung empire.  They also send Americans overseas to manage their regional offices.

    When you're providing services there's no way to get into the market without hiring people.  It's pretty impossible for an insurance company to sell their products in other countries without hiring people there.  That doesn't eliminate a single job in the U.S.

    Only here would a story about creating millions of jobs be considered bad news.

    •  Do You Assert (3+ / 0-)

      That, in aggregate, globalization has made the median American household richer? Because the median American income has fallen since the advent of free trade. You crow about the benefits -- but where are they?

      "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

      by bink on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:26:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think Sky's point is that the type of business (0+ / 0-)

        may demand foreign employees for American success and growth. UPS cannot airlift packages to foreign soil and drop them-- they need (foreign) employees there to receive and fulfill. That builds GDP here that cannot be gained without foreign jobs.

        Manufacturing overseas costs American jobs, but shipping overseas builds builds American jobs.

        UPS is not the ideal example of blaming US internationals for foreign job growth.

        Voting Republican is a luxury that very few Americans can afford.

        by Says Who on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:43:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  UPS has to deliver to Customs in foreign (0+ / 0-)

          countries, I believe, and then the customer has to pick up the items.  This gives rise to local delivery businesses in foreign countries.

          Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Island"s, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

          by judyms9 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:52:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Sky Net, your profile displays a "wicked" weapon. (0+ / 0-)

      Expanding overseas is not a bad thing.

      It is foolish to suggest it does anything for the US economy when corporations have a net zero, or taxpayer subsidy tax structure in the US.

    •  As noted, "under the right circumstances"... (0+ / 0-)

      ...globalization and free trade can be a good thing. But as long as what's going on here in the States are a range of attempts by these same companies to duplicate the situation they enjoy with their workers overseas — limited or no safety and health and environmental rules, low wages — then, yes, it is bad news.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:38:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's good news (0+ / 0-)

        Stories about creating jobs are always good news.

        You seem to labor under the misconception that all overseas business operations are in poor countries.  You think UPS gets a lot of demand in Botswana?  No, their business is in developed countries that have the need for express delivery.  And so what if they do hire in Botswana?  Hiring Botswanans to deliver packages in Botswana doesn't hurt you.

        I fail to see how U.S. companies operating overseas is going to change rules in the United States.  Unless of course they're bringing their business practices here from Europe and other developed countries where they do most of their overseas sales.

        •  You are laboring under the misconception... (0+ / 0-)

          ...that I am unfamiliar with U.S.-based companies operations overseas. Otherwise, you wouldn't focus on UPS jobs in the delivery biz abroad. Those new jobs don't cost jobs here, it's true, although even most of these ARE in emerging markets, China, other parts of Asia, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa. But this is a very special kind of business. Why choose to focus on it and skip over, say, Honeywell, whose off-shoring behavior DOES cost jobs here?

          If you fail to see how U.S. companies operating overseas changes the rules here, you should take a closer look at the agenda of the cream of U.S. companies who do have operations abroad. How long, for example, before the U.S. starts exporting Buicks made in China instead of making more of them here to export? Or before GM actually starts importing Chinese buicks here, cars because labor costs are even cheaper there than the halved wages for new hires the company now employs in "Detroit."

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 09:55:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong again (0+ / 0-)

            Take a look at the BEA statistics, specifically the document marked Operations of U.S. Multinational Companies in the United States and Abroad: Preliminary Results From the 2009 Benchmark Survey | SCB, November 2011.  A majority of employment overseas by U.S.-based multinationals is in developed countries (55% by my count, though the table doesn't include developed countries like New Zealand, Singapore, Korea and Hong Kong, and doesn't break down the Middle East).  Much of the growth is in emerging countries, of course, because that's where the economic growth and markets are.  And a lot of the employment in emerging countries is in professional services like financial, insurance, legal, engineering, etc., which are relatively highly paid jobs which, as I've pointed out, don't cost jobs in the U.S.

            You’re focusing on the sliver of jobs overseas that compete with U.S. jobs and ignoring the rest.  Look at the big picture.  Yes, this is a good thing.

            Also, you failed to explain how U.S. companies operating overseas changes rules here.  Just because GM might start one day importing Buicks from China doesn't change a single rule here.

            •  Have you not noticed the ramped up campaign... (0+ / 0-)

              ...to gut unions, cut pay, cut benefits, eliminate pensions, eviscerate environmental rules? A good portion of that is because, "to be competitive," it is argued, we can't have tougher rules, higher standards, better pay levels than can be found abroad.

              As for the "sliver" of jobs that compete with U.S. jobs, you're failing to be specific. A fair portion of Honeywell's overseas jobs ARE jobs that were MOVED overseas. They are highly paid jobs locally, in India and elsewhere, but they DO cost jobs in the U.S. Obviously, not all of them do.

              Moreover, citing the aggregate of jobs in the developed world (many of which, although not all, pay lower wages than in the U.S.) against my specific example of UPS is unpersuasive. I never said no jobs are created in developed countries or that most jobs are created in emerging markets. I said that about UPS.

              As for imported Buicks from China: what would be the reason behind that? Say, cheaper labor costs so that Buicks built in America could not compete with Buicks built in China. So, to compete, wages are reduced even further than they have been at GM (or it shuts down its Buick operations in the U.S.). THAT changes the rules.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 09:36:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Big companies are not our friends. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LostBuckeye, judyms9

    Fresh new little companies are our friends.

    We should have an economy that creates and celebrates millionaires but merely tolerates billionaires.

    Not that I necessarily want to punish billionaires, but, let's face it -- they've got resources. They can take care of themselves.

    On the other hand, when people start businesses that flourish and make them well-to-do, they tend to carry others along for the ride. And, frankly,  if a thousand people become millionaires, that's another thousand people who we really don't have to worry too much about.

    And...if another million or so people don't quite make it to millionaire, but get somewhere along the way, that's not such a bad thing either.

    Better still - 10 million, 50 million, however many we can encourage.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:33:14 PM PDT

    •  I think this is the essence of the American (0+ / 0-)

      Dream, dinotrac.  I want my lawn service guy to become rich, hire others, expand his business to cover a large segment of Michigan, but I don't want him spreading grub killer all over the world because somewhere along the line he'll have to send a lobbyist for grub killing to DC to make a deal with Fred Upton and other politicians.  But business is driven by the alpha dominance impulse, so I hold out little hope for rational business.

      It's worth noting also that when the political and economic circumstances line up in a certain way, overseas businesses can be nationalized by the host nation's government as happened to the Spanish oil company this week when the new president of Argentina took a controlling ownership in it on behalf of her nation.  I can see this happening in China.

      Romney went to France instead of serving in our military, got rich chop-shopping US businesses and eliminating US jobs, off-shored his money in the Cayman Island"s, and now tells us to "Believe in America."

      by judyms9 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 03:01:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The saving grace is that little businesses end (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        judyms9

        up competing against each other, have to win our business, and cannot simply tell us to take it or leave it.

        That's competition and free market in the sense that big corporations are not.

        It is to the economy what science is to gathering knowledge:
        a process that is better than the people who do it.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 03:39:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  How unpatriotic (0+ / 0-)

    We Americans have spent TRILLIONS of dollars and many lives  to secure freedom and free enterprise and this is how we are repaid by these unappreciated U.S. corporations there board of directors and CEOs. Money over patriotism. Shameful.

  •  Thanks for bailing us out, suckers! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    If we get into trouble we might need another bailout from the American taxpayers, but we know you're always good for it.

    “Take not from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” - President Thomas Jefferson

    by gjohnsit on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:46:06 PM PDT

  •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    but the CEO and top execs are making HUGE bonuses...

    Just one more reason to tax the rich.

    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." -- Hubert H. Humphrey

    by Candide08 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 02:59:50 PM PDT

  •  Shifting jobs due to customer demands too... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    A few years back my wife worked for an automotive supplier.  I'd expect a similar story for other companies and possibly Walmart suppliers too...

    They were pretty much told that they must reduce costs and move production overseas (first to Mexico, then to China) to stay competitive and keep contracts with Detroit's big 3.

    This upset their other customers who were European and Japanese customers building here in the USA.  They wanted parts they could depend on, and if some problems arose, they could be fixed quickly and fairly cheaply.

    Several products were moved overseas and the QA wasn't vastly improved so long standing, very stable products were now becoming problems.  The savings that were promised by the bean counters and the customers were never realized.

    Then to add insult to injury, once the factories overseas started to figure out how to make the parts.  They would raise the price or threaten to sell direct to the customer.

    There are other countries and markets, and I have little issue with us hiring people in those markets to deal local orders, concerns, and such.  That does not explain sending manufacturing, and then the design and engineering.  It is about chasing the last penny of profit.

    The Indian and Chinese professionals hired to do the same job that their American counterparts had were doing it for less money, with less protections, and less benefits.

    One of the things Industry has not learned as a whole, or in part, is that when we move all this overseas we are cannibalizing our own markets.  If we move all the design, engineering, and production overseas then we have moved all the jobs overseas too.  The people who used to do those jobs, can not purchase your wonderful widgets.

    •  "The people who used to do those jobs, can not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crazy like a fox

      purchase your wonderful widgets."

      But that's not a problem, is it? The Indian and Chinese workers will buy them.

      I'm working now for a company that has teams in Mumbai and Hyderabad, plus a large Indian contingent here. I'm not impugning any of them, but how the hell did it happen that NOT ONE SINGLE %^$# AMERICAN can do the work? I even humorously complained that they needed to hire more people, after describing how when I needed help, there was no one available (my usual teammate was putting out fires and none of the Indians here or there was available). SOMEONE had to ask it.

  •  Unfortunately, much of the problem is cultural (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    Unemployment in Germany is quite low, and not all because of government regulation.  The attitude of the society is so different.  When the recession hit in 2008, most German companies kept workers and put them on shorter work hours.  America has always been a more ruthless and turbulent environment.  On the other hand look at what has been invented here.  Hang gliders, personal computers, the internet, social media, and on and on and on.  I'm thinking though that we are now on an unsustainable path and there will be some precipitating  event or set of circumstances that will bring about major changes.

  •  Obviously, the corps and wealthy need to keep (2+ / 0-)

    their taxes low because, um, they are job creators.

    It's a tail-chasing argument that runs right over American workers.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 03:16:28 PM PDT

  •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    that why I'm voting Green

  •  Lots of Jobs lost when Big Players buy Small Ones (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LostBuckeye

    One of my clients started as a small privately owned company (about 100 employees mostly -well payed engineers) that provide good jobs for local workers. They were sold to a French holding company who purchased about a dozen similar companies across the US. They then spent about five years creating a corporate structure on top of the largely independent  companies and in the process of course shed a lot of jobs in IT, Human Resources and Accounting.

    After they have sufficiently polished the veneer and could pretend they were one big company they sold the resulting product to Honeywell.  They are of course now in the process of shedding even more jobs and moving many others outside the US. Having to deal with Honeywell's bureaucracy, I can honestly say I have not a clue how the company remains in business, let alone manages to be so profitable. The simplest of tasks involves mounds of paperwork, endless approval, and scavenger hunts to try to figure out how to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s. I have never dealt with such an unbelievable dysfunctional corporation. And yet they effortlessly generate revenue.

  •  The biggest reason for this is that our health (3+ / 0-)

    care in the U.S. is so much more expensive here than other countries, and given whats going on with the retirement of the boomers( myself included here) our healthcare is getting more and more costly and eating up more and more of the economy. It is not sustainable. We desperately need some kind of single/payer/universal healthcare setup, or even opening Medicare to all. But of course, this won't be easy given our current political climate.

    •  Absolutely - but the real biggest reason (0+ / 0-)

      is that the USA has become dominated politically and economically by those who are financial specialists and banksters that have created a society of wealth for their own kind,  instead of creating a society that benefits the USA and demographics at large.    

      America was once about a productive economy that made real stuff by real Americans that benefited all.    Now it is about a club of financiers and Hollywood type entertainers that benefit only their own,  while spouting divisive politics and sending US jobs to China.

      Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

      by dailykozzer on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 08:15:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Health care is the underlying rationale (0+ / 0-)

      while Wall St and their perpetuation of owned corrupt politics for the elite and 1 percent is the overlying reason.

      Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

      by dailykozzer on Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 08:19:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One of many things that piss me off is the (4+ / 0-)

    idea that there are "No qualified Worker"is available in the US.
    I call Bullshit on that, what they really mean is nobody wants to take a skilled job for only 66% of what the job should pay.

    I'd like to have these wankers show me what job any one can start on day one without some training.

  •  This trend is self-cancelling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego

    Creating more manufacturing jobs in 3rd world countries is actually not a bad thing, even if it's done in order to avoid paying what American and European workers are used to getting. The day is coming when all workers around the world will want to be able to buy what they produce, and will start demanding better working conditions and higher wages.

    Really, labor is international. All workers are brothers and sisters. Workers in Pakistan and China deserve decent working conditions and wages too.

    This trend has been creating bad conditions in wealthier nations for a while now now but it can't last. I think we should be making our plans for when there is no more cheap labor, not trying (almost certainly without success) to prevent it.

  •  Stop (0+ / 0-)

    all H1-B visas until 25 MILLION AMERICAN HAVE JOBS!!!!

    We do NOT owe the world a job.

    SEND THEM HOME NOW!

  •  I'M Four Score and Here's The Score (0+ / 0-)

    Just celebrated my 80th birthday and in case somebody young is listening this is what young Americans have to do to bring prosperity and a middleclass back to these shores.

    In terms of power, you don't stand a chance. America has been under the control of an oligarchy long before George W. Bush walked into the White House. In my day the power was concentrated in the hands of a group known as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). In its hey-day the NAM drove American policy on every front, socially, economically, and military. The NAM was the organization that President Eisenhower was referring to in his famous warning about the "Military- Industrial complex" taking over America. Since then the NAM has become a shadow of its former self and all of the giant corporations have moved on to become international players and hence found it expeditious to form the current oligarchy.

    When I was a kid and at summer camp the camp director would have a person of note come in to give a talk to all assembled there. One of the favorite was that the speaker would use to lead into Q&A was to ask the crowd "Well what shall we do about it?" So I will ask the same question here? Well here is my answer. The only thing that these super capitalists and oligarchs don't have is your creativity and your imagination. These God-given gifts you must PROTECT with every ounce of your strength and will, for the big money corporations will do their best to screw you out of every shred of your talent. The corporations can dig up low wage worker across the globe, and if you think your future lies in competing with them you are DOOMED.

    Rather use your inventiveness and creativity to make new revolutionary products and establish your own collective of highly independent START-UP Companies. Once you begin to feel the heady winds of acceptance and success for your products CONFIGURE your companies to have the following characteristics:
    (a) Profit sharing for all employees.
    (b) A permanent high priority for employee input for all products.
    (c) Provision for ownership participation for the employees.
    (d) Establish a permanent EXECUTIVE SUCCESSION configuration committee composed of represenatives of owners, stock holders, and employees.  

    If you are successful, the greedy giant corporations and oligarchs will do everything in their power to either buy you out or knock you out. However if all of you founders are successful in growing business while keeping the corporations and oligarchs at bay, you will return America to her traditional leadership  role in the world.

  •  Corporations are NOT our friends (0+ / 0-)

    They have NO reason to help anyone but their stockholders and top management.

    Help! The GOP is NUTS (& the Dems need some!)

    by Tuba Les on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 01:10:00 AM PDT

  •  I am with you blades (0+ / 0-)

    but you realize that is a disease in the values of our society.  As long as it's all about making money, there will be ceo's at the top who want bigger and bigger bonuses.  They will offshore jobs to the cheapest labor possible.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 06:30:07 AM PDT

  •  . (0+ / 0-)

    Democratic Illinois economically outpaces Scott Walker's Teabagger Republican Wisconsin.

    The Republican theory that Quinn's tax increases, designed to close a huge budget gap, would lead to a business exodus to Gov. Scott Walker's Wisconsin conservative utopia is bullcrap.

    It turns out that Wisconsin was the only state in the entire country to lose jobs in 2011, while Illinois had better than average growth. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia also predicted strong economic growth in Illinois, while placing Wisconsin last in its forecast.

    An economic analysis by Bloomberg finds that Wisconsin is getting its ass kicked by Illinois:

    "Illinois ranked third while Wisconsin placed 42nd in the most recent Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States index, which includes personal income, tax revenue and employment. Illinois gained 32,000 jobs in the 12 months ending in February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics found. Wisconsin, where Walker promised to create 250,000 jobs with the help of business-tax breaks, lost 16,900."

    http://www.bloomberg.com/...

    Schaumburg, your right wing mantra is that any tax increase kills jobs, but reality, as always, contradicts your crap ideology.

    Teabagger King Scott Walker was elected on a promise to create 250,000 new jobs in his state. Turns out that giving tax cuts to rich people and corporations, attacking unions and eliminating workplace pay protections for women ain't doing the trick.

    But go ahead and keep crying about Quinn's tiny tax increase, Schaumburg. I wouldn't want you to disappoint the wingnuts that you cater too in the Chronicle with the truth.

    http://www.jsonline.com/...

    "Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend" - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 08:03:35 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site