Are U.S. Multinationals to Blame for High Unemployment?
Many Americans believe the unemployment rate remains stubbornly high because U.S. multinational companies have been outsourcing and offshoring jobs to low-wage countries at the expense of jobs at home. And they believe this in part because politicians and the media tell them it’s so, even though it isn’t.
Consider this story today from the Associated Press under the provocative headline, “Where are the jobs? For many companies, overseas.”
Corporate profits are up. Stock prices are up. So why isn’t anyone hiring?
Actually, many American companies are–just maybe not in your town. They’re hiring overseas, where sales are surging and the pipeline of orders is fat.
More than half of the 15,000 people that Caterpillar Inc. has hired this year were outside the U.S. UPS is also hiring at a faster clip overseas. For both companies, sales in international markets are growing at least twice as fast as domestically.
The trend helps explain why unemployment remains high in the United States, edging up to 9.8 percent last month, even though companies are performing well: All but 4 percent of the top 500 U.S. corporations reported profits this year, and the stock market is close to its highest point since the 2008 financial meltdown.
But the jobs are going elsewhere. The Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says American companies have created 1.4 million jobs overseas this year, compared with less than 1 million in the U.S. The additional 1.4 million jobs would have lowered the U.S. unemployment rate to 8.9 percent, says Robert Scott, the institute’s senior international economist.
Where to start? First, look back at the reference to Caterpillar, the quintessential U.S. multinational company. If more than half of the employees the company has hired this year are outside the United States, doesn’t that imply that the company also hired workers within the United States, perhaps several thousand?
In fact, as I noted on p. 101 of my Cato book Mad about Trade, Caterpillar and other U.S. multinationals tend to hire workers at home when they are hiring workers abroad. When global business is good, employment tends to ramp up throughout a multinational company’s operations, whether in the United States or abroad. (Earlier this month the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News ran a story about Caterpillar hiring 600 new workers at a local distribution center.)
It is simply false to argue that, if U.S. multinationals did not add jobs to their operations abroad, those jobs would be created at home. The opposite is much closer to the truth. Over the past 30 years, the change in employment of U.S. multinationals in their U.S. parent operations and in their affiliates abroad has been positively and strongly correlated. When hiring grows abroad, it grows at home, and when it lags at home, it lags abroad.
And when U.S. companies do hire abroad, their aim is not typically to cut wage costs but to reach new customers (as I explained in an earlier op-ed). That’s why U.S. multinationals employ far more workers in high-wage Europe than in low-wage countries such as India and China. In fact, according to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. multinationals employed five times as many workers in Europe (4.82 million) in 2008 than they did in China (950,000).
If U.S. companies are forced to reduce their operations abroad in the name of fighting unemployment at home, they will be less able to compete in global markets and less able to expand production and employment in their domestic operations.
More and More Caution Flags in Race to the Top
With the first round of the so-called “Race to the Top” having produced just two winning states — and those states appearing to have won primarily because they were able to get teachers’ unions to sign onto their reform proposals – there seems to be a growing backlash against RTTT.
For one thing, several states are not applying for the second round of RTTT grants. Apparently, many just don’t think jumping through all the RTTT hoops is worth it, especially when, as a welcome new Economic Policy Institute briefing paper illustrates, who wins and who loses is pretty arbitrary.
Perhaps the more interesting new ojection to RTTT, though, is that it is, frankly, illegal. So writes the Brookings Institutions’ Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, who asserts that nowhere in the “stimulus” legislation authorizing RTTT does it say that the U.S. Secretary of Education can award money based on states doing things he prescribes. No, the authorizing legislation, according to Whitehurst, says that the money must go to states that have already made significant reform progress.
None of this, importantly, gets at the main problem with RTTT (in addition to its unconstitutionality): That there is just no good reason to believe that it will lead to any meaningful, lasting reform. Still, the crescendoing drumbeat against what so far has been the crown jewel of the Obama administration’s education policy is a good sign. More people, it seems, are realizing that the administration talks a great game about reform, but delivers quite the opposite.
Of course, hope still springs eternal for some folks.
Calling Out Trade’s Myth Makers
Organized labor’s trade “think tank” in Washington, the Economic Policy Institute, claims that currency manipulation is a major cause of the U.S. trade deficit with China, which (along with other unfair trade practices) accounted for 2.4 million American job losses between 2001 and 2008. EPI has been making similar claims for years, getting lots of media attention for its hyperbole, and providing smoke bombs for charlatan politicians to hurl into the discussion to obscure the public’s understanding of trade. For starters, as conveyed in this new paper, I am skeptical about the relationship between currency undervaluation and the trade account.
EPI’s methodology (to use the term loosely) is not to be taken seriously, though, because it derives from a simple formula that approximates job gains from export value and job losses from import value, as though there were a straight line correlation between the jobs and trade data. It pretends that there are no jobs created when we import, and that import value is somehow an appropriate measure of job loss.
The flaws of those assumptions are many, but perhaps the easiest one to convey is that most of the value embedded in imports from China is not Chinese. (The ensuing discussion is from a forthcoming Cato paper.)
Trade Gap Plunges in 2009, but Where Are the Jobs?
Lost in the buzz last week over health care was the news that the broadest measure of the U.S. trade deficit fell sharply in 2009 from the year before. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. current account deficit plunged from $706 billion in 2008 to $420 billion last year — the smallest deficit since 2001.
I’ve been waiting for a few days now for the usual trade deficit hawks to hail this development as great news for millions of Americans looking for work.
In years when the trade deficit was rising, it was common practice for the labor-union-friendly Economic Policy Institute to publish detailed studies showing that larger trade deficits caused the U.S. economy to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs each year. For example, according to an October 2008 EPI paper, rising non-petroleum trade deficits from 2000 to 2006 caused a lost of 484,400 jobs per year, while the shrinking deficit in 2007 lead to the creation of 272,500 jobs.
By the EPI’s own internal logic, the past two years should have been a boom time for job creation. Between 2007 and 2009, the non-petroleum trade deficit dropped by $174 billion as the sagging domestic economy cut demand for impost. If that was good news for jobs, somebody forgot to tell the U.S. labor market. Since the end of 2007, the U.S. economy has shed a net 8 million jobs.
Oops, maybe it’s time for EPI to rework its model.
This Is Why Universal Coverage Is a Religion — and Not about Compassion or Saving Lives
I was invited to participate in an email/online/sorta exchange for the Washington Post yesterday. Unfortunately, the effort was spiked after just a few rounds of emails. But rather than let my participation go to waste, I thought I’d post one exchange that I think highlights why I’m not just being colorful when I describe supporters of universal health insurance coverage as the Church of Universal Coverage. I could summarize the exchange, but I’m lazy. So I’ll just copy and paste.
I wrote:
All the interest groups are meeting with all the right politicians and making all the right noises, thus the Church of Universal Coverage says the stars have aligned for fundamental reform… Everyone is at the table right now because no one wants to be on the menu. But when the Democratic leadership makes its intentions clear, today’s love-fest will turn into a bloodbath.
Andres Martinez of the New America Foundation (who owes me a taco al pastor) responded:
I am a proud member of the church, Michael. As New America’s own recent study on the urgency of reform — which reads like a strong courtroom closing argument — noted, how can the world’s most prosperous nation afford to have tens of thousands of its citizens die each year because they lacked access to health care? Health care reform is a moral imperative, so your reference to a church (um, even if sarcastic) is appropriate…
I replied:
The Institute of Medicine estimates that every year, about 20,000 Americans die because they lacked health insurance, but as many as 100,000 die from preventable medical errors. What moral code compels the Church of Universal Coverage to solve the first problem before addressing the second?
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
