Exporting jobs to other countries

[charrison]

Linkage

Looks like India is not a the big player. But these are 1996 numbers....

The statistics for 1996 are: Out of total direct U.S. overseas investment of $796 billion, nearly $400 billion was made in Europe (England received 18 percent of it), next was Canada ($91 billion), then Asia ($140 billion), Middle East ($9 billion) and Africa ($7.6 billion). Foreign employment by U.S. corporations exhibited a similar pattern, with most workers hired in high-wage countries such as England, Germany and the Netherlands. Far fewer workers were hired in low-wage countries such as Thailand, Colombia and Philippines, the exception being Mexico.

The facts give a different story from the one we hear from the left-wing and right-wing anti-free trade movement. These demagogues would have us believe that U.S. corporations are rushing to exploit the cheap labor in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Ethiopia. Surely with average wages in these countries as low as $10 per month, it would be a darn sight cheaper than locating in England, Germany and Canada, where average wages respectively are: $12, $17 and $16 an hour.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote:
"Let's look at a few of the reasons why some U.S. corporations choose to carry their operations overseas. Much of it can be summed up in a phrase: less predatory government and the absence of tort-lawyer extortion. While foreign governments can't be held guiltless of predation, their forms of predation might be cheaper to deal with than those of our EEOC, OSHA, EPA and IRS. Plus, tort lawyer extortion and harassment in foreign countries is a tiny fraction of ours. With each tort lawyer extortion and expansion of predatory regulations at federal, state or local levels of government, foreign operations become more attractive to U.S. corporations. Free trade helps make those costs explicit. American workers are just about the most productive in the world -- however, our government and legal establishment have reduced that productive advantage. "

How do tort lawyers figure into shipping jobs anywhere? If the US company sells its product here it would still be open for tort actions. Predatory government? Insanity! OSHA simply seeks to maintain a healthy and safe work place. This is reasonable. It would be unnecessary if the owner insured this. EPA seeks to keep the Air, Water, and Earth habitable. This is also reasonable. It would be unnecessary if the owner didn't seek to dump toxic material because it was cheaper or pollute our air. EEOC simple maintains fairness because the owner refuses to do it on his own. IRS, this is less burdensome than in England, Canada and any European Country.
I think jobs go away in a quid pro quo among the NWO folks who seek to level out the world at the cost of Americans. A world they control and billions of serfs.

 

[Zebo]

the guy is a fool. What does investment have to do with anything? So what if foreinger invest in GE while thier shipping jobs overseas? Unless you own lots of stock and still your JOB is gone? Walmart is hiring.

It's simple. As jobs leave so does capital. Our tax base is lowered. We have no money to pay for education and China now does. We have no money to pay for research and China does. Can you hear the sucking sound? I can, we can't compete with Chinese labor @$2 a day when a container of goods only costs $1500-$2500 to get here. I would learn chinese now.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Zebo
the guy is a fool. What does investment have to do with anything? So what if foreinger invest in GE while thier shipping jobs overseas? Unless you own lots of stock and still your JOB is gone? Walmart is hiring.

It's simple. As jobs leave so does capital. Our tax base is lowered. We have no money to pay for education and China now does. We have no money to pay for research and China does. Can you hear the sucking sound? I can, we can't compete with Chinese labor @$2 a day when a container of goods only costs $1500-$2500 to get here. I would learn chinese now.

I think you are confusing the investment he is talking about; U.S. direct investment is when, as you so eloquently put it, a "foreigner invests in GE" stateside. This is what we refer to as "Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (FDIUS). The statistics that he is using relate to "U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (USDIA)," which is when U.S. MNC's invest in business ventures outside of the United States and its territories.


You are correct, though, in saying that it is an outflow of capital. Check out the 'Survey of Current Business' for tables on Capital Outflows relating to USDIA. If you look in the August edition, you'll see that charts I made on outflows, income, and overall position..think we release it in 3 weeks..

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Zebo
the guy is a fool. What does investment have to do with anything? So what if foreinger invest in GE while thier shipping jobs overseas? Unless you own lots of stock and still your JOB is gone? Walmart is hiring.

It's simple. As jobs leave so does capital. Our tax base is lowered. We have no money to pay for education and China now does. We have no money to pay for research and China does. Can you hear the sucking sound? I can, we can't compete with Chinese labor @$2 a day when a container of goods only costs $1500-$2500 to get here. I would learn chinese now.

I think you are confusing the investment he is talking about; U.S. direct investment is when, as you so eloquently put it, a "foreigner invests in GE" stateside. This is what we refer to as "Foreign Direct Investment in the United States (FDIUS). The statistics that he is using relate to "U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (USDIA)," which is when U.S. MNC's invest in business ventures outside of the United States and its territories.


You are correct, though, in saying that it is an outflow of capital. Check out the 'Survey of Current Business' for tables on Capital Outflows relating to USDIA. If you look in the August edition, you'll see that charts I made on outflows, income, and overall position..think we release it in 3 weeks..

In your opinion, how does the current outflow of capital compare to earlier periods?

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Capital Outflows from 1994-2002

Empirically speaking, the level of U.S. investment abroad, though it has its ups and downs, has generally been increasing; in 1994, capital outflows were ~ $73B. In 2002, that number increased to $119B. The bigger problem, however, is the ongoing trends in organizational structures. More often than not, companies are now setting up major holding companies overseas, primary in 'tax inversion' havens, and aggregating their financial data under the umbrella of the holding company. This distorts the sector-by-sector analysis, as a great deal of the income is now classified as 'Holding Company' data...a holding company with subsidiaries that derive the bulk of their income from manufacturing, financial services, etc are now listed as holding company income, which distorts the big picture of investment on an industry basis...

 

[LunarRay]

quote from FED:
In contrast to the empirical literature?s focus on foreign direct investment (FDI), this study examines the effects of foreign portfolio investment (FPI) and "other" foreign investment (OFI) on economic growth using data on 88 countries from 1977 through 2000. Most measures suggest that FPI has no effect, and some results indicate that OFI has a negative impact on growth that is somewhat mitigated by initial financial and/or legal development. However, these results are questionable due to possible simultaneity bias. The empirical analyses also examine whether non-FDI foreign investment affects growth indirectly. FPI does not correlate positively with macroeconomic volatility, but the results indicate that the negative indirect effect of OFI through macroeconomic volatility comprises a substantial portion of the gross negative effect of OFI on growth.

Agree or disagree? at bottom is the full analysis..

If we Isolate it would be a whole lot simpler to deal with the flows

 

[zephyrprime]

This guy is misleading because he doesn't count any foreign companies that may work for US firms but are not owned by US firms.

 

[povertystruck]

Gorilla dude is right. I heard that in India, they do work for U.S. companies like telemarketing for expamle. They try to imitate an american accent. It is cheaper for U.S. companies to hire Indians living in India because of the low cost of fibre optics.