The more worrying feature of the new global corporate structures is their capacity to devastate national labour markets by transferring their operations to cheaper locations overseas.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
If you're a global company you are going to have jobs overseas. The reality is if we start taxing those jobs at a rate that makes them noncompetitive in those markets, the reality is that we're going to lose business.
A lot of companies are global.
Whatever the trend in exchange rates or whatever the external factors, a manufacturing company is always faced with the mission of transforming itself into a company that can produce higher value-added to absorb the increase in the cost of living in the country it's operating in.
Globalization has redefined the competition for employment and incomes in the United States. Tradeoffs will have to be made between the two.
But in the past, US companies have been able to increase their profits through downsizing in the US, through colonizing other people's resources, and through the increase of globalization.
Rather than subsidize 'American' exporters, it makes more sense to subsidize any global company - to the extent it's adding to its exports from the United States.
When you innovate, you create new industries that then boost your economy. And when you create new industries and that becomes part of your culture, your jobs can't go overseas because no one else has figured out how to do it yet.
When an industry matures, it means it's not advancing, and of course the jobs go overseas. That's the obligation of the multi-national corporation: to put the factory where it can make the widget as cheap as possible. Don't get angry when a corporation does that; we've all bought into this concept. We live in a capitalistic society.
It's competition that forces companies to get out of their complacency.
It's not wise to limit firms' expansion projects. Let us only be limited by the market.
No opposing quotes found.