« Geithner's "Stress Test" for Banks, and a Stress Test for America | Robert Reich's Blog | And Now Homeowners »

The Stimulus and the Auto Bailout: The Perils of Confusing American Companies With American Jobs


Do not confuse American companies with American jobs.

The new stimulus bill, for example, requires that the money be used for production in the United States. Foreign governments, along with large U.S. multinationals concerned about possible foreign retaliation, charge this favors American-based companies. That's not quite true. Foreign companies are eligible to receive stimulus money for things they make here (as long as the nations where they're headquartered have signed the WTO procurement agreement). For example, Alstom, the French engineering company, is eligible to receive stimulus funds for the power turbines it produces in Tennessee; Japan’s Sanyo, for the solar cell parts it makes in Oregon; and French-owned Lucent Technologies, for the high-speed internet components it produces here, as well as the research it does here through its research arm, Bell Labs. On the other hand, U.S. Steel may not be eligible for stimulus money for the steel slabs it casts in Ontario, Canada.

I'm not defending the "buy American" provisions of the stimulus bill. I'm just saying they're not the same as "buy from American companies." And although these provisions skate close to protectionism and risk foreign retaliation, at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill in order to create American jobs, the jobs should be created, well, here in America. The same confusion haunts the debate over the auto bailout. Advocates of bailing out GM and Chrysler, and most likely Ford, say America can’t afford to lose "its" auto industry. But this argument leaves out the fact that foreign-owned automakers, already producing cars here in the United States, employ – directly or indirectly – hundreds of thousands of Americans. And at the rate the Big Three are shrinking, and plan to shrink even further -- even if they get bailed out --foreign automakers may soon be employing more Americans than the Big Three.

Meanwhile, the Big Three themselves are global. A Pontiac G8 shipped by GM from Australia has less American content than a BMW X5 assembled in the United States. General Motors’ European subsidiaries include Opel and Saab; Ford’s include Volvo.

I’m not arguing against an auto bailout. But it ought to be focused on helping American auto workers rather than helping global auto companies headquartered in America. Why pay the Big Three billions of taxpayer dollars to stay afloat when, even after being bailed out, they cut tens of thousands of American jobs, slash wages, and shrink their American operations into small fractions of what they used to be?

That’s backwards. The auto bailout should help American autoworkers keep their jobs or get new ones that pay almost as well.

Whether it’s stimulus or bailout, policy makers must remember that American companies aren’t the same as American workers – and our first responsibility is to the latter.

33 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill in order to create American jobs, the jobs should be created, well, here in America.

And, I presume, for Americans (or at least legal residents)?

By which I mean, shouldn't we pass some legislation requiring companies to use E-Verify to make certain that those they hire are authorized to work here? And shouldn't we seriously look at reducing the number of visas we give out when we have trouble employing the people who are already here?

user-pic

I'm not disagreeing, but surely you realize that many companies have what are essentially 'caste' systems: 'real employees' who have stock options, 401K's, etc, and then 'contractors' who receive benefits (if they have any) from a temporary employment outfit. Although it's true that these 'temp outfits' can sometimes have people on contracts for 2 and 3 year periods, fundamentally, there's no reason for the contractors to have a great deal of loyalty.

You make a good point.
But I'd add that in some situations, companies are more likely to hire contractors in order to avoid health and long term benefits obligations.

Reich points to a genuine problem, but if the US had at least a fundamental basic universal health care system, then it would be easier for employers to hire without having to worry about who's going to cost them additional medical benefits.

Your point is a good one.
Unfortunately, I gather that some of those 'non-US citizen' employees will continue to remain cheaper until the US implements some kind of basic health care coverage so that businesses aren't saddled with that load.

user-pic

The money for GM and Chrysler was reportedly some type of secured loans. Good point that the stimulus money, which was seperate from the auto loans, should be used to save and create jobs in America.

user-pic

Mr. Bush announced the plan [to use TARP funds to bailout GM and Chrysler] early Friday [12/19/2008], before the markets opened, and took no questions about its details. New York Times

I hadn't heard that these loans were secured. Do you have a link?

user-pic

Cutting visas is a recipe for even more economic disaster, particularly in the STEM fields, where 60% of our human resources are already from other countries.

Immigration isn't the problem, but nice try.

user-pic

Immigration isn't the problem, but using indentured labor from other countries to drive down the wages of immigrants and citizens alike doesn't help the economy. (If someone claims that cutting technical visas will cripple them, then just agree to keep the visa numbers the same but eliminate the provision that deports someone if they leave the job that brought them here. Watch the sputtering.)

user-pic

All too many visas are issued to bring in foreign workers simply because they work for less than comparably-capable Americans. You can pick your field, but I know from personal experience that such is the case in IT. I don't have anything against workers from India, Pakistan or China -- wherever -- coming to the US to work, but I do have something against giving them jobs that Americans I know personally could do, and are ready to do.

The abuse of H1B visas has been documented, but the companies who use them have more pull in DC than the displaced American workers.

Thanks.

mp

user-pic

The IT field has some unique perspectives on the immigration issue that are valid. I'm speaking more broadly about general STEM areas, which I also have some personal experience with. We simply don't have enough "American" workers to fill the jobs (or graduate programs) we have today, much less in 10 years, when those people will be heading back to their home countries to tap into better economic opportunities there.

Bottom line, I don't think it's a net win for the American economy writ large to start dictating to companies that they have to hire "Americans" in order to get financial assistance. It would be an immediate calamity, the equivalent of not only building a fence on the border to keep new people out, but immediately forcing some of the best technical resources we have in this country away for good.

user-pic

I understand there are areas where we need to bring in foreign workers because there just aren't enough of them here. I don't think that is true for IT though. I am in IT as a consultant in the insurance industry - when I can find work. And when I do the rates are anywhere from 30% to 50% lower than what I was making in 2002.
If I was in my 30's or even early 40's I would be able to move on to another career. It would of course be difficult but it could be done (even in IT). At my age (55) the odds of that happening are slim. The cost of training and the length of time it takes to get competent in a skill makes it uneconomical for someone my age, especially in IT.
What to do then. Unfortunately the bailout is only for large corporations so I will find no relief there. My only hope is that the Durbin bill will pass that will require companies to hire Americans, if they are available, before any H1-B visa holders are hired.
Long term though I would like to see that program eliminated and the L1 via program curtailed. Incentives must be established to train Americans for these jobs so we don't need those visa programs. I have a hard time understanding people such as Bill Gates who want to expand the H1 program because he can't find people. Why doesn't he take one of his many billions and establish a training program to eliminate his problem. I'm sure he won't miss the money and who knows it might even make him more.

user-pic

Bottom line, I don't think it's a net win for the American economy writ large to start dictating to companies that they have to hire "Americans" in order to get financial assistance.

No one has advocated this. What I advocated is that they need should be told that they need to use E-Verify in order to get financial assistance; that is, they should have to use the newer, more efficient system to make certain that their workers are authorized to work in the U.S. People who are legally allowed to work here, of course, include foreigners who are authorized to work here.

I also suggested that we "seriously look at reducing the number of visas we give out." I did not suggest eliminating visas entirely, and I certainly said nothing about revoking the visas of anyone who is already here, so your claim:

It would be an immediate calamity, the equivalent of not only building a fence on the border to keep new people out, but immediately forcing some of the best technical resources we have in this country away for good.

makes absolutely no sense.

user-pic

But here's the thing -- even the argument for restricting funds for job creation to jobs in the US is going to expire, eventually. And it should.

We still live in an age where deaths in the US matter more to newspapers than deaths outside our borders, and when jobs in the US matter more to our elected representatives than jobs overseas.

And there are still some good reasons for the latter -- jobs will migrate to the places where the lowest wages and regulation make for the lowest overhead. To take one example.

But morally, this brand of protectionism is about as healthy for the the world as a whole as the continued survival of the nation-state is for the cause of peace on earth. Whatever you feel about globalization, this recession confirms the financial interdependence that will eventually erase those economic borders for good.

user-pic

Let me get this straight -- you're arguing that race-to-the-bottom labor costs based on the lack of regulatory "overhead" of labor, environmental, and safety protections are not only "healthy for the the world," but morally superior?

And that the deregulated financial system with unfettered international connections that quickly turned an American financial collapse into a worldwide economic downturn illustrates the direction we should be going?

user-pic

No, you are *not* reading me right.

I'm saying that there are good reasons to want these jobs to stay in America and I use one of the examples you list as one of them.

But, frankly, if those are are your only concerns, shouldn't you want American jobs shifted to Sweden?

My argument is that I've never been comfortable with the fact that "Buy American" arguments are based on such arguments (with which I agree) and nationalist ones (about which I'm ambivalent). Just pointing out that right now, as an environmentalist, those interests usually coincide.

But what I've seen in my forty or so years is the US regulatory system in a "race to the bottom" and I'd predict that in another forty there will no longer be much of a reason other than nationalism to prefer an American having a certain job over a Brazlian having that job. I'm not crazy about the changes that are pushing us in that direction, but that's where IMHO we're going. That's why I hope for the day when the goal becomes "full employment, period" rather than "protecting American jobs".

Does that make more sense?

user-pic

Glaivester, The point isn’t the citizenship of the worker but his tax and consumption status. Resident workers, consuming societal goods and services, who are not taxed inside an economy are less useful than those who are.

- - - - -

It isn’t a stimulus package.
It is a rescue.
Not the same.

user-pic

Soooo,,, I get it now!!!

In the socialist's mind, those who pay the most taxes to the government are of the most 'use',,, to borrow your parlance.

Do you apply the same standards of 'usefulness' to cabinet appointments???!!!! Har,,, Har,, Har!!

user-pic

Who are you calling Socialist?

user-pic

It isn’t a stimulus package.
It is a rescue.
Not the same.

According to the bill itself, it is an "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009."

My pet google helped me figure out what STEM is ("science, technology, engineering, mathematics") but who shall explain ‘reinvestment’?

I vaguely imagine having invested $100 in the Coca-Cola Trust only to see it drop to $60 in the Crawford Crash, whereupon I move what's left over to ‘reinvest’ it in shares of Pepsi-Cola LLC.

But that does not make much sense as regards H.R. 1, does it?

Happy days.

user-pic

Yes, some foreign-make cars are assembled here. However, not all "content" is equal. BMW, Toyota, and others do the high-tech engineering in their home countries. Where are the engines and transmissions made and designed? What about the computer modules and other electronic controls? Content can also mean advertising, tires, batteries, paint, trim, seats, etc. Which would you rather provide?

user-pic

Um, I believe that was the point.

user-pic

We make corporations citizens with all rights associated therewith except the vote. And a corporation does not breath or hope or feeling anything. And like Haliburton and corporation can just 'move' to Dubai. Or break up into a thousand pieces so that no one can trace its assets.

The buildings that are here, the factories, the storage proceedings, these are real.

So I agree with your assessment.

But how about a low that makes all workers for corps in this country, shareholders? Lets do a Greenbay.

user-pic

Or at least give them an average human lifespan.

user-pic

I have bought a few cars as follows:

Ford Probe. Build in Michigan (with Mazda).

Ford Contour (V6 with 5-speed. Sweet). Built in Misssouri (as I recall). Had a lot of european parts. That car was as tight as can be, put over 200,000 miles on it.

Ford focus. Built in Mexico, engine made in the states.

Madda 6 (also a sweet car). Built at that same plant in Michigan. Engine from Japan, I think. I keep the union labor sticker on the back window, because it's so counter-intuitive.

Still, I think that where the high-level work and where the profits end up does matter in the long run.

user-pic

There is a big difference between the final assembly plant jobs that the foreign transplant auto makers provide, and the engineering and design jobs that GM, Ford, and Chrysler also provide in America.

The logic that says a Toyota or Honda assembled here is an American car also makes the Ipod a Chinese MP3 player.

user-pic

By some rules, the Ipod would be a Chinese MP3 player.

Try buying computer equipment strictly according to USG standard "Buy American" rules (not the stimulus ones). You won't be able to do it, at least not without very special orders from high level manufacturers. That doesn't mean we're not still a high tech leader.

Lots of things have such integrated components today that country of origin rules become nonsense.

user-pic

[P]olicy makers must remember that American companies aren’t the same as American workers – and our first responsibility is to the latter.

About as non-bipartisan a remark as one is likely to run across!

To be sure, Kemo Sabe did not make clear who ‘we’ are.

Happy days.

user-pic

Who are you calling Socialist?
Posted by Saladin in reply to a comment from spriche


Certainly wouldn't be anyone with a name like Saladin. I think too much of my head!!!
Posted by spriche in reply to a comment from Saladin

Ah! How wonderful to be able to determine so much from a person's name. Makes things so easy. Less taxes, free markets, and classification of people by their names. Are you also able to classify people by appearance, blacks, blondes, male, female etc ...?

user-pic

Buy American? By American? This is the question that gets lost so often. Reich makes a valid point. It's about making things right for Americans not companies that claim to be American but manufacture their products elsewhere. See Global Investment Watch on this at http://globalinvestmentwatch.com/2009/02/09/buy-america-by-america-bye-america-huh/

user-pic

To say that "American companies aren’t the same as American workers" is positively silly. Just WHO do you think those American workers are paid by? The two *must* be handled together.

Furthermore, to suggest that its somehow wrong for GM and Chrysler to cut jobs as part of a recovery package ignores the fact that these companies are hurting BADLY. I've lived in SE Michigan all of my life, lived through strikes in the 70's, cuts in the 80's, and troubles in the 90's and this latest downturn is so much worse than anything I've seen.

Until you see the people out of work, the number of houses for sale, the cars and trucks being sold off, do you realize how much trouble the auto companies are in. In our immediate area, 4 plants have closed in the last 2 years, and the cities and townships are stretching themselves to avoid bankruptcy or state receivership.

Leaders in the area are struggling to bring understanding of the scope of the problem to the "outside world", and highlight the genuine efforts the auto companies have made to the communities they affect.

Robert Reich is way off base. He should come to Detroit and spend a few weeks to understand the situation before he spews nonsense in the national spotlight.

Leave a comment

Robert Reich

user-pic

Following:
Followers: 203

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address