Trade, Taxes, Foreign Affiliates, & Jobs

by Don Boudreaux on February 3, 2010

in Taxes, Trade

Here are the opening paragraphs of Dartmouth economist Matthew Slaughter writing in today’s Wall Street Journal:

Deep in the president’s budget released Monday—in Table S-8 on page 161—appear a set of proposals headed “Reform U.S. International Tax System.” If these proposals are enacted, U.S.-based multinational firms will face $122.2 billion in tax increases over the next decade. This is a natural follow-up to President Obama’s sweeping plan announced last May entitled “Leveling the Playing Field: Curbing Tax Havens and Removing Tax Incentives for Shifting Jobs Overseas.”

The fundamental assumption behind these proposals is that U.S. multinationals expand abroad only to “export” jobs out of the country. Thus, taxing their foreign operations more would boost tax revenues here and create desperately needed U.S. jobs.

This is simply wrong. These tax increases would not create American jobs, they would destroy them.

Academic research, including most recently by Harvard’s Mihir Desai and Fritz Foley and University of Michigan’s James Hines, has consistently found that expansion abroad by U.S. multinationals tends to support jobs based in the U.S. More investment and employment abroad is strongly associated with more investment and employment in American parent companies.

When parent firms based in the U.S. hire workers in their foreign affiliates, the skills and occupations of these workers are often complementary; they aren’t substitutes. More hiring abroad stimulates more U.S. hiring. For example, as Wal-Mart has opened stores abroad, it has created hundreds of U.S. jobs for workers to coordinate the distribution of goods world-wide. The expansion of these foreign affiliates—whether to serve foreign customers, or to save costs—also expands the overall scale of multinationals.

Expanding abroad also allows firms to refine their scope of activities. For example, exporting routine production means that employees in the U.S. can focus on higher value-added tasks such as R&D, marketing and general management.

The total impact of this process is much richer than an overly simplistic story of exporting jobs. But the ultimate proof lies in the empirical evidence.

Consider total employment spanning 1988 through 2007 (the most recent year of data available from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis). Over that time, employment in affiliates rose by 5.3 million—to 11.7 million from 6.4 million. Over that same period, employment in U.S. parent companies increased by nearly as much—4.3 million—to 22 million from 17.7 million. Indeed, research repeatedly shows that foreign-affiliate expansion tends to expand U.S. parent activity.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Steve_0
    I always try to tell hippie friends and acquaintances that this is what aiding global poverty looks like. Their dream since the 60's of helping the third world doesn't come from collecting money in tin cans from everyone and sending it over to Africa in a box.

    It looks like an American MNC opening a plant in India and everyone getting a job stitching shoes in a stuffy plant. Then their kids do technical support where they work in air conditioning. Then they all go buy the $2000 Tata car.

    When you try to smack down the American MNC, because they are "rich" or "greedy" or whatever, ultimately it hurts the people at the bottom of the totem pole that are trying to get a leg up onto the bottom rung of the ladder.
  • Gil
    Why is it alway a case of the Mighty Westerners lifting up Ne'er Do Well Easterners out of poverty? Take Western charity or take Western jobs? Why can't the people figure it out for themselves? Who lifted up the Westerners from obscurity? Aliens? Gods?
  • eidolways
    Two things here...

    First, politicians are - as always - guilty of being the very Men of System that Adam Smith accuses them of being. They use summary statements, aggregations... They move the pieces as they believe they, in their wisdom, should. They don't take into account shifts in the market. When something happens that people don't like, even if it's actually helpful overall, politicians can be counted on to step in and "correct" it. That's what they're doing here.

    Second, this article doesn't take into account the complaints that have arisen due to the exportation of jobs overseas. The fact that the complaint exists does speak to the fact that exportation of demand for labor does cause loss of jobs on the individual level, even if it does not cause a net loss of jobs. The trick is that when certain sectors are sent overseas, such as manufacturing, those individuals that have the skills for that sector are left momentarily high and dry. They must then educate themselves for a new sector, move to one that does not require education, and generally in some way adapt to the change. It's not a pleasant process, but it is possible and necessary for overall economic growth. But it is a real process involving the loss of a livelihood for real people. Note I'm not arguing for restrictions on trade. I'm simply noting that there is a real, human element that produces these complaints against exportation of labor.
  • johndewey
    eidolways: "when certain sectors are sent overseas, such as manufacturing"

    Is that what you meant to write? I think a better statement might be:

    "when some low-skilled, low-valued manufacturing tasks are sourced elsewhere"

    Though the global recession caused a slowdown, the value added by the U.S. manufacturing sector in 2007 and mid-2008 was at an all time high.
  • eidolways
    While I thank you for the well-meaning correction, what I wrote was what I meant to write. Manufacturing was intended merely as an example, and it is not necessary that the jobs that are sourced from foreign nations be either low-skill OR low-value. It is only required that the value gained from sourcing overseas production be greater than domestic production. You'll note this doesn't actually require a specific, absolutely determined level of skill or value in the sector that is being outsourced.

    EDIT: It is worth noting that such a reason - marginal value as opposed to absolute value - is why manufacturing is not the only sector to see an increase in international use. Engineering is now a popular sector for international use, with many a domestic technology company locating offices in nations such as India.
  • johndewey
    If that was your meaning, then please still consider changing your original statement. When you wrote:

    "when certain sectors are sent overseas, such as manufacturing"

    it certainly seemed to imply that our entire manufacturing sector - or at least most of it - had been sent overseas. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and that's why I tried to get you to correct your statement in the first place.
  • eidolways
    "Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and that's why I tried to get you to correct your statement in the first place."

    True, and there you have me, sir! I apologize for not being clearer, and I thank you for pointing it out.

    I wholly agree that US manufacturing is still alive and well.

    EDIT: Removed the qualifier. It wasn't necessary, as I don't need to qualify my agreement. My apologies.
  • NathanS
    It's good to see more empirical reasonings for free markets. With the modern universities so inundated with interventionist it's hard to find good studies supporting what should obvious.
  • Bob
    Socialist, Collectivist, or Communist, take your pick. All describe P. Obama and his associates approach to governing!
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: