Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6546|San Diego, CA, USA
How to Destroy American Jobs

Wall Street Journal wrote:

Deep in the president's budget released Monday—in Table S-8 on page 161—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 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 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 is 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 world-wide. The expansion of these foreign affiliates—whether to serve foreign customers, or to save costs—also expands the overall scale of multinationals.
Protectionism hurts us the most.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5583

Anti big business liberals and hick populist finally find an issue they agree on; protectionism.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina
The way Europe ensures a lot of jobs stay in their countries is by requiring a certain amount of jobs physically in their countries in order for a major business to even operate there in many cases.  There are all kinds of tariffs and taxes that can be used to discourage outsourcing.

The fact that America doesn't do this sort of thing very often may aid our economy in terms of attracting investment and attracting entrepreneurs, but it also makes us much more vulnerable to outsourcing than any other First World country.

When looking at how other countries use protectionism for their own interests, a certain amount of it is necessary for us to implement to balance things out in serving the interests of our labor.

Ultimately, reciprocal trade policies make the most sense, because it forces other countries to open up their markets in order for us to do the same.   This can be replicated in terms of labor policies as well.

So, in short, protectionism isn't inherently a bad thing.  Depending on the context and how it's being wielded, the threat of it can actually force other countries to open up their own markets.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6150|what

You shouldn't really tax outgoing work. Tax goods and services that are coming into the country sure, so that the exports compete with internal markets but not to the point where they become a superior product. Like taxing foreign car imports so the local manufacturers can compete with price of the mass produced Japanese car market.

Protectionism is good when it creates healthy competition. This doesn't sound like it will do that.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5699|College Park, MD
It doesn't help that if a company wants to build something, they can just erect a factory in China and hire some peasants and/or children and start pumping our their product. Whereas here you have to get permits, work with OSHA, etc.

Not saying that protecting workers is a bad thing, but there are so many lengthy expensive hoops to jump through that a company will rather just go to the cheaper area.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

It doesn't help that if a company wants to build something, they can just erect a factory in China and hire some peasants and/or children and start pumping our their product. Whereas here you have to get permits, work with OSHA, etc.

Not saying that protecting workers is a bad thing, but there are so many lengthy expensive hoops to jump through that a company will rather just go to the cheaper area.
This is part of why protectionism is somewhat necessary to discourage outsourcing.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

The way Europe ensures a lot of jobs stay in their countries is by requiring a certain amount of jobs physically in their countries in order for a major business to even operate there in many cases.  There are all kinds of tariffs and taxes that can be used to discourage outsourcing.

The fact that America doesn't do this sort of thing very often may aid our economy in terms of attracting investment and attracting entrepreneurs, but it also makes us much more vulnerable to outsourcing than any other First World country.

When looking at how other countries use protectionism for their own interests, a certain amount of it is necessary for us to implement to balance things out in serving the interests of our labor.

Ultimately, reciprocal trade policies make the most sense, because it forces other countries to open up their markets in order for us to do the same.   This can be replicated in terms of labor policies as well.

So, in short, protectionism isn't inherently a bad thing.  Depending on the context and how it's being wielded, the threat of it can actually force other countries to open up their own markets.
Except this is a plum being handed over to unions in US manufacturing plants. I've already stated in other threads about how these unions do far more harm than good.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Except this is a plum being handed over to unions in US manufacturing plants. I've already stated in other threads about how these unions do far more harm than good.
Well, I'll put it this way...  it is possible to design a system insulated from outsourcing but still frees employers from being held captive by unions.

If necessary, you could even outlaw unions in some industries.  We may have to eventually do that to save our homegrown auto industry.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Except this is a plum being handed over to unions in US manufacturing plants. I've already stated in other threads about how these unions do far more harm than good.
Well, I'll put it this way...  it is possible to design a system insulated from outsourcing but still frees employers from being held captive by unions.

If necessary, you could even outlaw unions in some industries.  We may have to eventually do that to save our homegrown auto industry.
Protectionism of any sort does far more harm than good. All globalization has done for America is help us shed jobs in which there is a large amount of competition and traded them for more specialization. Specialists across the board make more money than those who work at tasks in which the worker is fungible.

The modern world is technology driven and requires a higher level of education than was required in previous generations. Those who advocate protectionism are inhibiting progress because they are attempting to protect those old industries for emotional or historical rather than rational reasons. To be quite honest, if there was any justice those that continue to spit on education in this day and age would starve instead of receiving welfare payments. Man evolved, they failed to, and yet we're still carrying them along with us
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Except this is a plum being handed over to unions in US manufacturing plants. I've already stated in other threads about how these unions do far more harm than good.
Well, I'll put it this way...  it is possible to design a system insulated from outsourcing but still frees employers from being held captive by unions.

If necessary, you could even outlaw unions in some industries.  We may have to eventually do that to save our homegrown auto industry.
Protectionism of any sort does far more harm than good. All globalization has done for America is help us shed jobs in which there is a large amount of competition and traded them for more specialization. Specialists across the board make more money than those who work at tasks in which the worker is fungible.

The modern world is technology driven and requires a higher level of education than was required in previous generations. Those who advocate protectionism are inhibiting progress because they are attempting to protect those old industries for emotional or historical rather than rational reasons. To be quite honest, if there was any justice those that continue to spit on education in this day and age would starve instead of receiving welfare payments. Man evolved, they failed to, and yet we're still carrying them along with us
Well, if we decide to completely remove all protectionism from our economy, we'd better have a comprehensive and specialized plan for educating our people.  I agree that more job specialization is protection against outsourcing in its own right, but also as you implied, we'd need to have a very good education system for the majority of the populace to be able to adapt to the demands of an economy like that.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-02-04 21:44:59)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Well, I'll put it this way...  it is possible to design a system insulated from outsourcing but still frees employers from being held captive by unions.

If necessary, you could even outlaw unions in some industries.  We may have to eventually do that to save our homegrown auto industry.
Protectionism of any sort does far more harm than good. All globalization has done for America is help us shed jobs in which there is a large amount of competition and traded them for more specialization. Specialists across the board make more money than those who work at tasks in which the worker is fungible.

The modern world is technology driven and requires a higher level of education than was required in previous generations. Those who advocate protectionism are inhibiting progress because they are attempting to protect those old industries for emotional or historical rather than rational reasons. To be quite honest, if there was any justice those that continue to spit on education in this day and age would starve instead of receiving welfare payments. Man evolved, they failed to, and yet we're still carrying them along with us
Well, if we decide to completely remove all protectionism from our economy, we'd better have a comprehensive and specialized plan for educating our people.  I agree that more job specialization is protection against outsourcing in its own right, but also as you said, we'd need to have a very good education system for the majority of the populace to be able to adapt to the demands of an economy like that.
We already do have a great education system. We just have a shitty attitude towards education as a culture. What I took out of the other thread I created today was how important and how large an impact the parents have on a kids education and attitude towards it. Both of the school districts had almost identical budgets on a per student basis so it's obvious that throwing more money at education is not the solution.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6713

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Protectionism of any sort does far more harm than good. All globalization has done for America is help us shed jobs in which there is a large amount of competition and traded them for more specialization. Specialists across the board make more money than those who work at tasks in which the worker is fungible.

The modern world is technology driven and requires a higher level of education than was required in previous generations. Those who advocate protectionism are inhibiting progress because they are attempting to protect those old industries for emotional or historical rather than rational reasons. To be quite honest, if there was any justice those that continue to spit on education in this day and age would starve instead of receiving welfare payments. Man evolved, they failed to, and yet we're still carrying them along with us
Well, if we decide to completely remove all protectionism from our economy, we'd better have a comprehensive and specialized plan for educating our people.  I agree that more job specialization is protection against outsourcing in its own right, but also as you said, we'd need to have a very good education system for the majority of the populace to be able to adapt to the demands of an economy like that.
We already do have a great education system. We just have a shitty attitude towards education as a culture. What I took out of the other thread I created today was how important and how large an impact the parents have on a kids education and attitude towards it. Both of the school districts had almost identical budgets on a per student basis so it's obvious that throwing more money at education is not the solution.
I think all this gangster rap and video games is dis-sensitizing America's youth to a life of crime and violence tbh. Kids these days just don't give a fuck about where they go in life, they just pretty much leech off mom and dad. Most college kids... don't even finish college in the first place, why bother? Heh the college culture is a joke. Most people go to college to "have fun and party duuuuuuuuuude," instead of spending their parent's money wisely and actually study.

The only money I'd throw for education is definitely more afterschool LEARNING programs (not fucking sports, jocks can buy their own shit). MUN is a great program for getting kids to know more about the world. Help those that actually want to learn.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

I can't believe it hasn't been done yet...



On a serious note...I think G@lt hit the nail on the head WRT cultural/parental attitudes toward education. At a macro level, it's cultural, but at a micro level, it's parental. There's variation within each cultural group, of course.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Ticia
Member
+73|5332

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Protectionism of any sort does far more harm than good. All globalization has done for America is help us shed jobs in which there is a large amount of competition and traded them for more specialization. Specialists across the board make more money than those who work at tasks in which the worker is fungible.

The modern world is technology driven and requires a higher level of education than was required in previous generations. Those who advocate protectionism are inhibiting progress because they are attempting to protect those old industries for emotional or historical rather than rational reasons. To be quite honest, if there was any justice those that continue to spit on education in this day and age would starve instead of receiving welfare payments. Man evolved, they failed to, and yet we're still carrying them along with us
Well, if we decide to completely remove all protectionism from our economy, we'd better have a comprehensive and specialized plan for educating our people.  I agree that more job specialization is protection against outsourcing in its own right, but also as you said, we'd need to have a very good education system for the majority of the populace to be able to adapt to the demands of an economy like that.
We already do have a great education system. We just have a shitty attitude towards education as a culture. What I took out of the other thread I created today was how important and how large an impact the parents have on a kids education and attitude towards it. Both of the school districts had almost identical budgets on a per student basis so it's obvious that throwing more money at education is not the solution.
Wouldn't that be 'cause the education system fails somewhere? I'm a big believer on education as the key to an healthy society but something has to be wrong for parents to not want their kids to continue their studies. Maybe it is because they're all too dumb to get it or maybe school and teachers are not doing their job right.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6579|SE London

Macbeth wrote:

Anti big business liberals and hick populist finally find an issue they agree on; protectionism.
Surely protectionism is the opposite of liberalism?

Economic liberalism is exactly what you want. Because it's good.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

Ticia wrote:

Wouldn't that be 'cause the education system fails somewhere? I'm a big believer on education as the key to an healthy society but something has to be wrong for parents to not want their kids to continue their studies. Maybe it is because they're all too dumb to get it or maybe school and teachers are not doing their job right.
Numerous factors but the overriding reason is complacency. We've been #1 for so long and life has been so easy that people just took everything for granted. Kids in school spend more time discussing trivial matters like sports, music, TV shows etc than they do the actual subjects they are learning. We've become a society that seeks distraction rather than education. The average American spends more time in front of the TV than they do actually talking to their family members or friends. Kids pick up on this and mimic those behaviors. If you want to read some really sad statistics I'll post some from the publishing sector:

1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.
80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.
70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
57 percent of new books are not read to completion.
70 percent of books published do not earn back their advance.
70 percent of the books published do not make a profit.
A successful fiction book sells 5,000 copies.
A successful nonfiction book sells 7,500 copies.
Each day in the U.S., people spend 4 hours watching TV, 3 hours listening to the radio and 14 minutes reading magazines.

And I can't find the stat but something like 90% of all books are purchased by only 5% of the population.

I read books because my father read books. My two youngest brothers have a different father and have read maybe two books between them in their lifetime. Parents influence their kids educational habits more than anything.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Ticia
Member
+73|5332

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Wouldn't that be 'cause the education system fails somewhere? I'm a big believer on education as the key to an healthy society but something has to be wrong for parents to not want their kids to continue their studies. Maybe it is because they're all too dumb to get it or maybe school and teachers are not doing their job right.
Numerous factors but the overriding reason is complacency. We've been #1 for so long and life has been so easy that people just took everything for granted. Kids in school spend more time discussing trivial matters like sports, music, TV shows etc than they do the actual subjects they are learning. We've become a society that seeks distraction rather than education. The average American spends more time in front of the TV than they do actually talking to their family members or friends. Kids pick up on this and mimic those behaviors. If you want to read some really sad statistics I'll post some from the publishing sector:

1/3 of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives.
42 percent of college graduates never read another book after college.
80 percent of U.S. families did not buy or read a book last year.
70 percent of U.S. adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
57 percent of new books are not read to completion.
70 percent of books published do not earn back their advance.
70 percent of the books published do not make a profit.
A successful fiction book sells 5,000 copies.
A successful nonfiction book sells 7,500 copies.
Each day in the U.S., people spend 4 hours watching TV, 3 hours listening to the radio and 14 minutes reading magazines.

And I can't find the stat but something like 90% of all books are purchased by only 5% of the population.

I read books because my father read books. My two youngest brothers have a different father and have read maybe two books between them in their lifetime. Parents influence their kids educational habits more than anything.
Most of my college friends parents were pushing them to go to school but they weren't discussing Adam Smith at home. It is the norm to want more for your kids and not the other way around.

You're right about the books but i had a +5000 books at home growing up and everytime my dad would tell me to go read a book i'd rather game, isn't that too the norm?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

Ticia wrote:

Most of my college friends parents were pushing them to go to school but they weren't discussing Adam Smith at home. It is the norm to want more for your kids and not the other way around.

You're right about the books but i had a +5000 books at home growing up and everytime my dad would tell me to go read a book i'd rather game, isn't that too the norm?
My main point is that those who should be putting in the most effort into getting ahead and leaving a life of being poor behind are instead doing the least to get ahead. They sure do like complaining about how unfair the world is though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Ticia
Member
+73|5332

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Most of my college friends parents were pushing them to go to school but they weren't discussing Adam Smith at home. It is the norm to want more for your kids and not the other way around.

You're right about the books but i had a +5000 books at home growing up and everytime my dad would tell me to go read a book i'd rather game, isn't that too the norm?
My main point is that those who should be putting in the most effort into getting ahead and leaving a life of being poor behind are instead doing the least to get ahead. They sure do like complaining about how unfair the world is though.
Getting ahead is more and more about working the system, i don't know a place where you get rich playing by the rules.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5355|London, England

Ticia wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Most of my college friends parents were pushing them to go to school but they weren't discussing Adam Smith at home. It is the norm to want more for your kids and not the other way around.

You're right about the books but i had a +5000 books at home growing up and everytime my dad would tell me to go read a book i'd rather game, isn't that too the norm?
My main point is that those who should be putting in the most effort into getting ahead and leaving a life of being poor behind are instead doing the least to get ahead. They sure do like complaining about how unfair the world is though.
Getting ahead is more and more about working the system, i don't know a place where you get rich playing by the rules.
That's a pretty sad indictment of your society then Here in America there is every opportunity to get rich playing by the rules. see: Warren Buffett
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6598|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

The way Europe ensures a lot of jobs stay in their countries is by requiring a certain amount of jobs physically in their countries in order for a major business to even operate there in many cases.  There are all kinds of tariffs and taxes that can be used to discourage outsourcing.

The fact that America doesn't do this sort of thing very often may aid our economy in terms of attracting investment and attracting entrepreneurs, but it also makes us much more vulnerable to outsourcing than any other First World country.

When looking at how other countries use protectionism for their own interests, a certain amount of it is necessary for us to implement to balance things out in serving the interests of our labor.

Ultimately, reciprocal trade policies make the most sense, because it forces other countries to open up their markets in order for us to do the same.   This can be replicated in terms of labor policies as well.

So, in short, protectionism isn't inherently a bad thing.  Depending on the context and how it's being wielded, the threat of it can actually force other countries to open up their own markets.
You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ticia
Member
+73|5332

JohnG@lt wrote:

Ticia wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


My main point is that those who should be putting in the most effort into getting ahead and leaving a life of being poor behind are instead doing the least to get ahead. They sure do like complaining about how unfair the world is though.
Getting ahead is more and more about working the system, i don't know a place where you get rich playing by the rules.
That's a pretty sad indictment of your society then Here in America there is every opportunity to get rich playing by the rules. see: Warren Buffett
Oh mr. "do as i say not as i do"? Yeah right.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6283

Kmarion wrote:

You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.

To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.

Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6598|132 and Bush

PureFodder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.

To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.

Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
High corporate taxes encouraging business to stay.. I do believe I've heard it all now. Sudan is a ridiculous example. Of course there needs to be some sustainable infrastructure. That isn't to say that all countries that offer tax breaks for job creators are hell holes.

Nanny state? More like communism.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6402|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You can't MAKE a company operate in your borders. The only thing taxes do is ensure that they don't.
Actually, taxes often encourage companies to stay. Spend it on infrastructure, security, R&D, education etc. and they end up better off than if they weren't taxed. If Sudan offer a 0% corporate tax rate big business isn't going to be flooding there any time soon.

To put it another way, really big businesses need a really big nanny state to suckle from and save their asses when they mess up.

Also, you can literally stop companies from leaving the country, you just have to bring back something like the Bretton-Woods capital controls that prevent people and companies from moving their capital out of the country.
High corporate taxes encouraging business to stay.. I do believe I've heard it all now. Sudan is a ridiculous example. Of course there needs to be some sustainable infrastructure. That isn't to say that all countries that offer tax breaks for job creators are hell holes.

Nanny state? More like communism.
Actually, there are flaws in both of your perspectives.

On the one hand, you are correct that high corporate taxes encourage corporations to move elsewhere.  This is why corporate taxes in the majority of the First World are low -- lower than ours in fact.  We have lower personal income taxes, but they have lower corporate taxes.  This means that wealth is easier to hoard among individuals in America, whereas wealth tends to get reinvested more in Europe.

The goal shouldn't be to tax companies more, but letting the market completely clear itself without restrictions isn't the answer either.

Protectionism in the form of stricter labor laws and stricter hiring requirements for businesses to sell their products in a domestic market without tariffs work quite well for most of Europe.

So protectionism can work quite well in some contexts, but it's not about taxation as much as it is about labor requirements.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard