Posted on 03/01/2010 7:22:44 PM PST by Cringing Negativism Network
This poster doesn't get it.
Conservatives are so consistently, so often, so very right. So clearly.
About so many things!!
Why is it, so many are so blind to what is happening to our nation, as a result of our historically STUPID trade policies?
Is it that conservativism is by definition a resistance to too much change, and that "free trade" was a cherished belief for so long there's simply a resistence to noticing it's become dangerous?
Free trade is a fool’s gambit. When you open your borders and the other country does not, it will cause problems. That is something the free-traders just won’t admit.
Right now, like saps, we open ourselves up, but the other size keeps its trade closed. That ain’t free-its stupid!
They do-its called unemployment & welfare, but I bet that isn't what you meant.
“If American companies cannot manufacture goods in America that Americans will prefer over foreign made goods for whatever reason, then manufacturing doesn’t belong in America. Those out of work from manufacturing jobs will just have to make themselves productive in another line of work.”
I’ve sat in the executive suite when decisions were made to shut down US factories and outsource the production. The decision never related to the quality of the imported product being higher than the US product nor the actual cost of the imported product being lower at the time the decision was made. The decision always related to assumption regarding future economic scenarios and the expected impact on the price of the company’s stock. Let me explain.
In the 1990’s, many of the large US investment banks pushed outsourcing as a way for corporations to increase productivity, free up cash, and improve the earnings per share which in turn would increase the price of the company stock. Specifically, selling off domestic manufacturing operations and moving production to contract factories in Asia resulted in the liquidation of US fixed assets which in turn generated cash. That cash was often “reinvested” in stock buy backs. The investment banks generated huge commissions assisting with the disposal of assets (buildings and land) as well as executing the stock buy back transactions. The stock buybacks effectively reduced the number of shares of stock outstanding which if earnings were flat
The benefit for the corporation in terms of lowered product costs was often not significant. After all, the cost of imported products includes a profit margin for the foreign factory, higher transportation costs associated with bringing product to the domestic market, customs duties, and the infrastructure costs associated with sourcing goods and monitoring quality. For some manufactured products outsourced to China the real cost benefit was taxes, not real manufacturing costs. Some of the tax considerations included: lower Chinese corporate tax rate (20% for small manufacturers versus 35% US) on the Chinese factory, Chinese government “tax rebate” on exported goods, elimination of property taxes on US facilities, and the ability of the US corporation to shift profits offshore where they may be taxed at a lower rate than in the US. Plus in many instances the cost of capital for constructing new factories was close to zero in China during the 1990’s and early 2000’s due to Chinese government incentives while the cost of capital in the United States was much higher. By outsourcing the US company could replace aging bricks and mortar in the US with no investment of internal cash, thereby freeing up more cash for stock buy-backs.
In looking at the direct costs of imported manufactured goods versus domestic products (i.e. labor+materials+transportation+duties+direct overhead) there was virtually no cost differential between the US and China. Raw material costs were virtually identical while the labor differential was often a minimal factor. For most US manufactured products, direct labor was a small component of total cost. Plus US factories were almost always significantly more efficient than Chinese factories — i.e. many more units produced per employee. The direct labor cost differential between US and Chinese companies was usually offset by the higher productivity of the US worker and the incremental costs required to source the products and transport them to the United States.
The outsourcing decisions I witnessed during that time involved other factors, typically the analysis of investment bankers and executive compensation. During that period of rapidly escalating executive bonuses, incentive compensation of CEO’s and other senior officers typically was based on earnings per share and return on invested capital. Outsourcing had a major positive impact on both performance measures. A CEO of a slow growth mature business with significant capital investment in US factories could use outsourcing to dramatically reduce invested capital. The cash generated by liquidating assets could be used to buy back stock thereby reducing the number of shares outstanding and elevating earnings per share even if actual dollars earned by the business were flat or declining. These outsourcing programs often took 4-5 years to execute, and allowed CEO’s to earn maximum incentive compensation during a time when they were actually divesting the productive assets the corporation had accumulated over decades. Wall Street applauded this financial engineering, rewarding the companies with higher stock prices and ignoring the “one time” earnings charges for employee severance costs and asset write-downs. Government productivity statistics showed dramatic increases in business productivity as businesses shed US manufacturing employees and demonstrated an ability to generate the same or higher levels of sales with many fewer employees.
Now that much of America’s industrial capacity has been outsourced, we are beginning to see the cumulative impact of these decisions. First, many ideas associated with product innovation come out of factories where engineers tinker with equipment and discover new ways to use the assets. That source of innovation is now gone. Secondly, companies are finding that it is difficult to run product development functions in the US while having manufacturing operations offshore and are moving the high value knowledge worker jobs from the US to be near the sources of production. The lost manufacturing jobs (labor and management) are resulting in flat to declining per capita disposable income in the US and a shrinking middle class.
Those companies trying to sustain manufacturing in the US are finding the economics shifting against them. The number of domestic suppliers for component parts and raw materials has declined significantly resulting in higher domestic raw material costs and component costs due to reduced competition. In many instances there may only be one domestic source for certain components. At the same time, the Chinese have raised prices on certain component parts or machine parts used by US manufacturers in targeted industries in an effort to squeeze out the remaining US manufacturers.
In addition, US companies bear the cost of employee health care (most foreign competitors have health care costs covered by the government), high product liability costs due to a costly legal system, and high regulatory costs. All of these are government imposed penalties on domestic manufacturing, not direct production costs or quality issues.
The Chinese are in an economic war with the US and we have chosen not to fight. Government regulations, tax policy, Chinese government subsidies, and financial manipulation by Wall Street bankers all work against US manufacturing. These forces have nothing to do with the actual economics of manufacturing products.
My experience suggests that American manufactured goods can compete with foreign goods on cost and quality. The high productivity of the American worker combined with Yankee ingenuity will win on a level playing field. However, when government policies tilt the playing field allowing foreign governments to subsidize their exports through export tax rebates and low capital costs, while at the same time executive compensation systems discourage investment in productive assets, US manufacturing cannot win.
Instead of giving up on American manufacturing, how about leveling the playing field and allowing US workers and those of us who still want our country to have a powerful industrial infrastructure to compete on a level playing field. Eliminate the foreign economic subsidies through increased tariffs or equivalent tax policies. Pass meaningful tort reform ending shakedowns of corporations by trial lawyers by making them pay when they lose. Lift regulatory burdens. Shift management compensation to align with long term growth of the business instead of one time actions to boost EPS in a given year. Evaluate CEO on growth of dollar sales and profits over time instead of EPS which can be manipulated short term.
Many of the products we are now importing are shoddy. It seems as if everyday we read about imported drywall emitting toxic poisons, toys containing toxic lead paint, or foods tainted by chemicals. I don’t believe Americans prefer these dangerous products over domestic products. In many cases they aren’t given the choice by the marketplace because potential US producers are burdened by government dictated costs the foreign government subsidized foreign producers do not bear.
The recent tainted Chinese drywall scandal is a prime example of market forces not working. The consumer had no choice in the matter no does he/she have any recourse against the foreign producers of the tainted product. When the consumer purchased a new house, no one advised the purchaser the drywall was contaminated. Even if the consumer had been aware of the potential for contamination, there was no way to test for it. Now they are stuck with expensive repair costs and no legal recourse against the Chinese producers who cheated on the use of materials to produce the product. Given a choice up front between purchasing a home made from less expensive imported tainted drywall and a more expensive home made from more expensive untainted US drywall, I suspect most consumers would choose the American made product even at a higher cost.
Why yes, like cadmium-ridden girls' jewelry, melamine-doped dog food, and diethylene glycol-flavored toothpaste, as well as magnificently designed accelerator pedals.
The industrial base in nonunion, right to work states has been decimated as well, so it’s not all about that.
As far as it takes to get you to stop spouting knee-jerk mindless strawmen instead of engaging in honest rational discussion.
The problem with politics, economics, and business is that they place too much stress on "metrics" and "models" to the point that they forget that these are only approximations; causing them to overlook or to deny inherent risks. See also "black swan events" and / or "collaterallized debt swaps" for a recent catastrophic example.
You also appear to be dangerously naive, and covering for it by a thin shell of pseudo-intellectual bluster.
Remember the line about "Each job shipped to China or India creates 1.4 jobs here"?
Hmmm, does that mean our Drecession (recession on the edge of Depression) is due to China and India's woes? Or is the converse what happened.
The rush to offshore has been due to short-term greed based on wage arbitrage, coupled with false promises of infinite markets of new consumers (to replace the so-called aging US population). Look at the Demographics of the US vs. Europe, Japan, and China. China has a VERY short-term bump of people in prime "consuming years" before a massive spike in average age -- due to the one-child policy. Not to mention their government is now beginning to shut out Western companies in preference to their own, to supply their internal markets...now that they have appropriated our latest technology. And they are sociologically incapable of their own research: see here.
Cheers!
Would you have time to take a look at several vanities I have written here on FR about the subject (note the dates) and give me feedback, as you say you have been *in* the boardroom when the decisions were made?
Thanks!
(Vanity) Another Look at Outsourcing (8-14-2005)
(Vanity) Whither the Economy? (02-08-2006)
(Vanity) A Falling Tide Grounds All Boats (03-05-2006)
(Vanity) Peak Labor (03-06-2006)
Cheers!
When you remove the incentive to remain unemployed, they will find a way. Necessity is the mother of invention.
So, you think that we can come up with a 100 million high skill jobs?
What an incredibly cheap shot. Before government took it over, I always bought GM. But you seriously are making the point that Toyota and Lexus are sub standard? Even the vast majority of them on U.S. roads that were built in U.S. factories?
And what do you bet that when the dust settles the whole thing will turn out to be a witch hunt? And didn't GM announce a recall today?
There is a mad dash by many automakers to distance themselves from CTS, much as many sponsors are running from Tiger Woods.
Of course it's a witch hunt: I even wrote about that here: Obama and the Auto Companies, or, The Toyota Controlla.
But that doesn't absolve manufacturers of having to watch suppliers CLOSELY -- particularly ones as corrupt as Communist China.
Cheers!
I read your posts.
With respect to companies responding to demographics (i.e. outsourcing because of declining growth of the US population as well as looking for new consumers) I haven’t seen it. My experience in the executive suite is the focus is very short term. Most detailed planning is one year out. Long range plans are usually 3 years out and in some cases 5. Even 3-5 years is too short a time horizon for an individual company to have to cope with labor force or market size changes resulting from demographics.
The reality is most investors in US companies are institutional investors with a short term time horizon. The mutual funds and pension plans owning US stocks churn them frequently. These are not long term investors. These owner’s are looking one quarter ahead. They could care less what impact demographics will have in 10-15 years because they won’t own the company if its earnings decline. CEO’s are hired to be responsive to owners. Since the owners are frequently changing, and have very short investment horizons, CEO’s are managing for the short term. Hence compensation plans that reward EPS in the current year. For this CEO outsourcing is of interest if she/he can impact the current year earnings by reducing payroll expenses and invested capital.
You are correct that long term cost competitiveness is not the rationale. However, you give too much credit to CEO’s and institutional shareholders to be developing strategies to deal with long term demographic trends. With most institutional investors owning shares of a company less than one year and the average CEO serving 3 years or less, executives have little regard for the long term implications of their decisions. If they did, we’d see free cash invested in the business (productive assets and people) instead of one time stock buybacks. Businesses would also value domestic intellectual capital and institutional knowledge seeking to leverage it rather than outsourcing people.
I believe outsourcing is a short term strategy used by mature company CEO’s to grow EPS when their strategies are not resulting in topline growth. Plus outsourcing offers financial institutions a wide variety of fee and commission generating transactions so Wall Street loves outsourcing.
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.