Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas [Where's The RNC On This?]
Wall St. J ^ | April 26, 2012 | SCOTT THURM

Posted on 04/26/2012 10:52:20 PM PDT by Steelfish

April 26, 2012 U.S. Firms Add Jobs, but Mostly Overseas

BY SCOTT THURM

Thirty-five big U.S.-based multinational companies added jobs much faster than other U.S. employers in the past two years, but nearly three-fourths of those jobs were overseas, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

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 ...

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons
KEYWORDS: jobs; usjobs; usjobsoverseas

1 posted on 04/26/2012 10:52:23 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

WSJ stubs really suck .)


2 posted on 04/26/2012 11:01:04 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The RNC’s busy catching up to the DNC in terms of being more liberal than ever.


3 posted on 04/26/2012 11:17:01 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Federal taxes on repatriated earnings are so massive, that it is economic suicide to bring money earned abroad back into United States.

The companies have no option other than to use the money to expand their businesses abroad.


4 posted on 04/27/2012 12:03:43 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
[Where's The RNC On This?]

Where do you think the should be?

But they also added more than 333,000 jobs in their far-flung—and faster-growing — foreign operations.

Makes perfect sense to me! Where there is growth in demand, there is a growth in employment! Or should the RNC take the stand that a company may not do well overseas when the ecomony at home sucks?

5 posted on 04/27/2012 12:07:03 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Don’t subscribe so can’t read the entire article - but IMO many of the comments are well worth reading.


6 posted on 04/27/2012 12:16:44 AM PDT by Grams A (The Sun will rise in the East in the morning and God is still on his throne.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Where there is growth in demand, there is a growth in employment
Sounds like something the current administration might say to shrink the US jobless figure. There is no benefit to the USA to have companies based in the USA employ workers outside the USA when they could be employed here. Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures is still valid. Outsourcing undermines our national security.
7 posted on 04/27/2012 12:25:44 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
here is no benefit to the USA to have companies based in the USA employ workers outside the USA when they could be employed here.

So the Walmart in Germany should employ a US Citizen in the US at the check out line - UPS should employ US Citizens for it's delivery personal in France, etc ...

Interesting concept ....

8 posted on 04/27/2012 2:11:02 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Nonsequitur. Retail and manufacturing are disparate in that respect, and retail in that arena is not taking jobs away from Americans.

Read Hamilton’s “Report On Manufactures”. There’s text online.
9 posted on 04/27/2012 2:21:48 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Read the article! It specifically mentions Walmart & UPS as well as Honeywell ...

ALL of them have operations in overseas markets and employ locals to do the work locally - this has no effect on the US market UNLESS those positions could have been done by someone in the US, i.e. a company moves it production to a foreign country.

You want to be pissed off because Walmart & co hired 300K overseas workers over a 2 year period to satisfy overseas requirements? Knock yourself out.

Are you also pissed off when BMW & Co hire Americans to sell cars in the US? Or when Deutsche Telekom hires Armericans to perform work in America?

International Companies hire workers internationally. When a specific regional market grows, the comapny hires more workers there to satisfy demand.

Thats Business 101 ...


10 posted on 04/27/2012 2:38:39 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Please read Report on Manufactures. My primary focus is on Honeywell, FTR, in this context. Wal-Mart and UPS are not manufacturers.
11 posted on 04/27/2012 2:43:45 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Okay, so your bound and determined to be pissed. Fine.

Ever consider that Honeywell & Co also sell products and services overseas and that they need local workers to do that?

Call up Honeywell International’s homepage and check out what positions are open in the foreign markets before you get all bent out of shape about them hiring workers overseas.

Lastly, if you don’t like the fact that manufacturing jobs have been moving offshore for decades - maybe you should start campaigning for a level playing field (i.e. high tarifs on products & services coming from places like China) which would do a lot to stop that from happening ...


12 posted on 04/27/2012 2:58:43 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
"Or should the RNC take the stand that a company may not do well overseas when the economy at home sucks?"

Just noting that the US economy does not suck uniformly -- according to the BLS, in March 2012 the unemployment rate among those with a Bachelor's degree and higher was 4.2%. Among Black or African-Americans, Both sexes, 16 to 19 years old, unemployment was 40.5%.

It's good that US companies are hiring overseas. Their overseas operations don't have an Obama to contend with, and he appears to have succeeded in his goal of creating a permanent US underclass. Have the Dems proposed legislation to punish US companies for operating successfully in countries that are not run by economic ignoramuses yet?

13 posted on 04/27/2012 3:48:49 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
[Where's The RNC On This?]

LOL SUCKERS.
14 posted on 04/27/2012 3:53:03 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

crickets.....

Nobody in DC is capable of finding a mirror ....and using it to discover the root of the problem


15 posted on 04/27/2012 4:05:54 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222
Obama's fault?

The data shows the drop in domestic hiring as a percent has fallen from 79% in 1989 to 67.7% in 2010.

The data also shows the drop in 2009 was 0% and in 2010 was 0.3%

Any way, it is very important to give these companies the Ryan tax break so the shift more of their hiring overseas.

16 posted on 04/27/2012 4:18:03 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Lastly, if you don’t like the fact that manufacturing jobs have been moving offshore for decades - maybe you should start campaigning for a level playing field (i.e. high tarifs on products & services coming from places like China) which would do a lot to stop that from happening ...

BUMP!!!


17 posted on 04/27/2012 4:23:06 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (Obama ate his own dog as a child in Indonesia??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
The rnc DOES NOT want to win this election... everything that they do and do not do... points to this conclusion.

LLS

18 posted on 04/27/2012 4:33:03 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Pray hard and often!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
"Obama's fault?"

He's the only US President that I know of whose strategy has been to formally codify laws and regulations that actually punish US companies for hiring lower skilled workers here in the US. Of course it's a brilliant strategy, because if they're unemployable, they're Democrats for life!

Ivy league lawyers, MBAs and PhDs should do fine in their guarded suburban enclaves. The core urban Democrat constituencies, less so. Will they ever realize it, or just stay in the pot of warm water as it boils?

19 posted on 04/27/2012 5:20:41 AM PDT by Sooth2222 ("Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself." M.Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

sounds like a perfect setup for an Obama-Biden Vilify and Demonize Tour if I’ve ever heard one...


20 posted on 04/27/2012 6:10:33 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Lastly, if you don’t like the fact that manufacturing jobs have been moving offshore for decades - maybe you should start campaigning for a level playing field (i.e. high tarifs on products & services coming from places like China) which would do a lot to stop that from happening ...

You can't create a “level playing field” by imposing more big government restrictions, all you can do is further mess up the market mechanisms. The result of restricting imports from China will mean higher prices in the United States with no rise in income. The only institutions that gain are the government and American manufacturers. It doesn't help the Economy, production costs will rise, if the tariff applies to raw materials and intermediate goods. This puts further pressure on the price level and causes American production to decrease.

We need to quit strangling American business, not start strangling foreign business. If we really want to level the playing field we should consider lowering the corporate tax rate, and disbanding the EPA and OSHA. Getting rid of the minimum wage would help as well, I know that's extremely unpopular, but it would decrease unemployment.

Adding foreign workers is not going to count in the GDP numbers, or the jobs added numbers. If you want to make American companies less profitable so they have to lay off American workers go ahead and use the powers of our Leviathan government to make them stop, but you won't like the side effects. Oil is a great example everyone understand we can't just cut off the supply of foreign oil, without lifting restrictions on domestic production. The same logic applies here.

21 posted on 04/27/2012 6:35:20 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Fight because its right, not because the odds are on your side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy

Tariffs are not restrictions.

The United States of America had import tariffs most of our long, world-leading history.

It is now, that we no longer encourage our own manufacturing, that we are rapidly collapsing.


22 posted on 04/27/2012 6:37:19 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (Obama ate his own dog as a child in Indonesia??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sooth2222
Have the Dems proposed legislation to punish US companies for operating successfully in countries that are not run by economic ignoramuses yet?

Of Course, but they get a lot of help from the Pubbies too. Anyone subject to the US Tax Code is taxed on WORLD WIDE income, regardless of whether that income is taxed elsewhere - it must be declared and returns filed. For an individual, the first 75k is not subject to US tax, after that, you enter the wonderful world of double taxation of income. The US is one of, if not the ONLY nation to do this. This is why US Corporations move HQ's offshore - it protects income from sources outside the US while still maintaining some operations in the US. It is also why a lot of expats [not me!] choose to renounce - the benefit of remaining a citizen is far overshadowed by the tax burden, especially when the dollar takes a nose dive which suddenly "doubles" my "US income" without me having any material advantage.

23 posted on 04/27/2012 7:43:47 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Tariffs are not restrictions. It is now, that we no longer encourage our own manufacturing, that we are rapidly collapsing.


Not in the same sense that quotas are, but they raise the price of the imported goods on which they are placed. They are a restriction the same as a tax is a restriction on earnings. If you the price of Chinese goods rises, there will be fewer imports at a higher price; that makes a tariff a restriction.

American manufacturing has never been more heavily saddled with government regulations, taxes, and Union workers contracts than they are now. American industry has had many fears of being put out of business by foreign firms, beginning in the 1800's with the rise of England as a manufacturing power. Well as you know, it survived. Given the changes in technology, America may not be the most cost effective producers of lower tech manufacturing. Firms can do better with high tech manufacturing and the service industry. I would point out that manufacturing is still 20% of our economy, and given the rise costs of production in China is expected to rise again. I always find it baffling at best when conservatives support big government solution to any problem.

24 posted on 04/27/2012 7:44:17 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Fight because its right, not because the odds are on your side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
By making the Chinese products contain the costs they don't include due to thier:
stealing of our trade secrets,
utilizization slave labour, and / or
disregard for even basic environmental standards
we could indeed "level the playing field".

Do we have too many restrictions in the US? Of course, and the should be eliminated. That wont solve the problem though. Not as long as we allow nations with less then dubious standard and Companies that operate within them to dump thier junk in our markets.

Will costs go up? Sure. But all we are doing now is getting cheap prices on cheap goods and effectively dumping our waste NIMBY ...

25 posted on 04/27/2012 7:56:52 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
I can see the logic in that, but I also wonder how we are going to keep from simply driving the companies to Indonesia, South Korea, or whoever has the next batch of slave labor available. It's a good theory, but I don't see a way to match the tariff to the actual cost.

It also is clear that simply imposing a tariff on Chinese goods won't help America's Economy, especially in the short run. TANSTAAFL being immutable, it is the Chinese citizenry currently bearing those costs you mentioned.

The sad truth on the slave labor is like the sweatshops of the early industrial revolution, they do provide a better (only in the extreme relative sense of the word)existence than being out of work and starving to death. Our companies provide the cheapest foreign aid. It's thanks to American companies, among others, that wages and incomes have been rising in China. As the excess supply is employed the wage rises, but the adjustment process is slow.

They don't call it the dismal science for nothing.

26 posted on 04/27/2012 8:38:15 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Fight because its right, not because the odds are on your side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
It's a good theory, but I don't see a way to match the tariff to the actual cost.

Simple - add the cost "savings" of not doing "X" to the price of the product as a tarif. Once the junk coming from Asia is no longer competitive from a price aspect - quality will become the determining factor.

It also is clear that simply imposing a tariff on Chinese goods won't help America's Economy, especially in the short run.

Sure it will - people will no longer just buy the cheap junk (especially because the price will increase but the quality will still be crap!) - thus the trade balance will shift back home which increases GDP and employment.

It's thanks to American companies, among others, that wages and incomes have been rising in China.

I could care less about that. It is being done at the expense of domestic manufacturing and that is wrong. Make them play by the same rules that a domestic company must or they can dump thier junk in some third world shithole ... It is not the duty of the unemployed American worker to ensure that Apple makes a profit selling i-whatevers, produced with child and slave labour, with no regard for the environment.

27 posted on 04/27/2012 10:20:37 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Makes perfect sense to me! Where there is growth in demand, there is a growth in employment!

Wrong. Where there are pro growth policies, there is growth. Growth is something the federal government and the Federal Reserve will not allow until the people get angry and demand it.

28 posted on 04/27/2012 10:31:30 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

When it comes to screwing the average productive American, the RNC is in partnership with the DNC.


29 posted on 04/27/2012 10:32:26 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Simple - add the cost "savings" of not doing "X" to the price of the product as a tarif. Once the junk coming from Asia is no longer competitive from a price aspect - quality will become the determining factor.

Ok, suppose we have a plant in China that makes widgets, employs slave labor and pollutes to high heaven. How do we calculate what % or level of tariff on Chinese widgets? Do we assume the only reason Chinese widgets are cheaper are do to those factors?

Sure it will - people will no longer just buy the cheap junk (especially because the price will increase but the quality will still be crap!) - thus the trade balance will shift back home which increases GDP and employment.

You are forgetting the income effect. As you have noted the price will rise on goods currently imported which will increase the trade balance. However consumer spending will also be effected in the opposite direction. That rise in price is not accompanied by any change in income. That leads to a decrease in purchasing power and effectively a lower income. It is also worth noting this effect will primarily effect the low income consumers currently buying the lower priced goods. If I go to buy a widget and find the price is $2.00 higher, that's $2.00 I'm not spending on other goods.

In the long run I can see the argument that a tariff that takes into account the externalities will put the market closer to its true equilibrium. However, in the short run, because those costs are not passed on to consumer, the consumers are benefiting at the cost of the Chinese who actually bear those non-monetary costs. There will be a cost to changing that even if it's the best thing. If the income effect is larger than the trade balance effect then GDP will not increase and unemployment will not decrease.

30 posted on 04/27/2012 12:49:05 PM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (Fight because its right, not because the odds are on your side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Idaho_Cowboy
How do we calculate what % or level of tariff on Chinese widgets?

A start would be to estimate the amount saved via the blatent disrard of basic human rights & environmental standards. Use international cost averages as a base. Then add a hefty penalty on top of that for said disregard!

Do we assume the only reason Chinese widgets are cheaper are do to those factors?

Of course not - China is nothing but an example case.

That rise in price is not accompanied by any change in income.

On the (very) short term - yes. On the short to long term - no! Domestic companies, in order to take advantage of the more equal playing field, will hire workers to fulfill demand, this will reduce exports and increase consumer purchasing - both of which reflect positively on GDP.

That leads to a decrease in purchasing power and effectively a lower income.

You are confusing monetary inflation with higher prices. Purchasing power diminishes when more money is introduced into the market via fiat (or credit), something we have been doing for over 30 years.

If I go to buy a widget and find the price is $2.00 higher, that's $2.00 I'm not spending on other goods.

True. However, once the domestic market, with it's built in competition takes hold, that widget will become less expensive.

Will Tariffs "solve" our problems? Of course not. But they will help bring things back in line - AND - will stop rewarding countries such as China for thier abuses ...

31 posted on 04/29/2012 3:59:49 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

The thought is correct and explains the reason for increase in foreign employment. Growth

The China bashers have an Ameracentric view on everything and fail to consider the fact that employees are needed to start a company foreign operations or to grow a company that is producing for foreign domestic markets.

American companies abroad produce for foreign domestic consumption and not just for export or export at all


32 posted on 04/29/2012 4:35:41 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... Present failure and impending death yield irrational action))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Wrong.

Excuse me? "Where there is growth in demand, there is a growth in employment!", that statement is wrong? Please provide some empirical evidence of your assertion that this widely accepted axiom is untrue.

Where there are pro growth policies, there is growth.

That sir, is wrong. There is no such thing as "pro growth" policies. There is only absence (or lack) of gevernment interference.

Growth is something the federal government and the Federal Reserve will not allow until the people get angry and demand it.

That is a silly statement. The government and the Fed want growth so they can continue to borrow. They are becoming desperate because all the old ways of faking growth are failing and the private sector is not growing (due to too much government interference!)

33 posted on 04/29/2012 7:44:44 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Excuse me? "Where there is growth in demand, there is a growth in employment!", that statement is wrong? Please provide some empirical evidence of your assertion that this widely accepted axiom is untrue.

What is the ultimate source of demand? What does the government say it is?

That sir, is wrong. There is no such thing as "pro growth" policies. There is only absence (or lack) of gevernment interference.

Wouldn't a policy of less government interference be a pro growth policy?

That is a silly statement. The government and the Fed want growth so they can continue to borrow.

Really? How much money have they borrowed in the last 6 or 7 years of near zero growth, compared to the previous years where there was growth?

Why has the Fed wrongly claimed for decades that economic growth and wage increases are the cause of inflation and that inflation is the number one enemy of the economy?

34 posted on 04/29/2012 8:20:57 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
What is the ultimate source of demand? What does the government say it is?

That is not a refutation of my assertion.

Wouldn't a policy of less government interference be a pro growth policy?

Should we be thankful when our assailant promises to hurt us less? Does the act of cessation of harm on the part of the assailant mean the assailant now wants our wellbeing?

How much money have they borrowed in the last 6 or 7 years of near zero growth, compared to the previous years where there was growth?

Define growth! If you mean REAL growth, i.e. an increase in production / spending that is NOT funded by deficit spending - we haven't "grown" in a very long time. If you mean what the government says is growth at any on specific point in time, then we already have a problem with definitions.

But to answer your question, far more than they should have, but we have been living on deficits for over 30 years!

Why has the Fed wrongly claimed for decades that economic growth and wage increases are the cause of inflation and that inflation is the number one enemy of the economy?

Because the Fed had to have a scapegoat for it's own policies! It is the incessant borrowing over the last 30 years that have resulted in MORE money in the system, the very definition of monetary inflation.

So, do you care to finally defend your assertion that my statement "Where there is growth in demand there is an increase in employment." is wrong?

35 posted on 04/29/2012 8:49:48 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson