Slashdot Mirror
Intel Co-Founder Calls For Tax On Offshored Labor
theodp writes "Intel co-founder and ex-CEO Andy Grove calls BS on the truism that moving production offshore to locations with much lower wages is a sound idea. 'Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs,' says Grove, 'we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today's "commodity" manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow's emerging industry.' To rebuild its industrial commons, Grove says the US should develop a system of financial incentives, including an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. 'If the result is a trade war,' Grove advises, 'treat it like other wars — fight to win.'"
The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
... and enter it with reckless abandon and no exit strategy; that last part is crucial.
If you send work off shore, you no longer get all the corporate welfare tax breaks that US companies get.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Of course this ever happening in the US this is a pipe dream, but I like to visit these dreams every once in a while and yes it makes me feel better.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Now, I would consider myself fairly conservative. Usually the argument goes "they're taking our jobs!! We need to enact protectionist policies to protect American workers!"
Doing this blindly, I have a problem with it-- it doesn't make economic sense. If we are more efficient at producing one good, and they are more efficient at producing something else, then it doesn't make sense for us to waste money trying to produce it ourselves in the States.
However, I cannot economically justify free trade when
1). the trade occurring is uni-directional (IE, we're buying from them and they're not buying anything of ours-- I don't count China's investment in Treasuries as real goods-based Trade [even though financial trade is _technically_ trade])
2). one of the countries (China) involved in the trade refuses to let their currency's value be determined by the market.
In other words, what we have now is not true "free trade". If it were free trade, China would be buying our products [unfortunately much of our product is now Intellectual Property and it's difficult to enforce consumption of these goods], and China would not be fixing the value of their currency. If they weren't fixing the value of their currency relative to ours, then any trade imbalances would be slowly corrected as it becomes more and more expensive (in dollars) to outsource labor/manufacturing to China.
The Intel guy is mostly right; we just differ on how the imbalance should be corrected. I'd much rather a natural, market-driven return to mean, than a politically dangerous (taxing imports) one.
I would rather pay a get more for the product to ensure I get good customer support.
You say that now, but how many products tell you where their tech support is based on the packaging? If you see two identical products on the shelf and one is ten bucks less than the other, you're going to buy the cheaper product without even thinking about where their call center is. Consumers cannot be trusted to vote with their dollars on things like this, especially since in the vast majority of cases they are called upon to make purchasing decisions with incomplete information.
Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere, decreasing quality of products and services, and gutting the middle class of more prosperous nations. We've seen this over the past decades. Unfortunately, both consumers and suppliers make decisions on short-term scales, meaning they tend to make decisions based on what the balance sheets say today without even considering the impact those decisions will have years or decades down the line. In theory, government regulation is supposed to help provide a hedge against that sort of thing, since governments are supposed to be concerned with more long-term economic matters.
This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been. Simply dropping all tariffs and letting businesses run wild all at once has produced a situation where everyone except for the very richest among us suffers, and even they will start to suffer if we allow the middle class to completely disappear and they have to drive through squalor on the way to their gated compounds like they do in many developing countries.
It's in everyone's best interest to preserve a robust middle class in developed countries and encourage the middle class to grow in developing countries. Globalization policies should be undertaken with that goal in mind, not with the sole purpose of driving down cost as has been done so far.
When Grove was CEO of Intel, HE was the one who moved much of their R&D overseas because they were "unable to get qualified Americans."
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
If the laws and taxes make it economically infeasible to compete without offshoring, Intel like every other corporation will offshore. Grove is suggesting we make it more feasible to compete with local labor because of the long term benefits it will have for innovation. I expect if it were economically feasible to keep work here they would.
Nothing hypocritical here.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
Some years back, my uncle got an MBA at UC Berkeley's Haas school of business, and the commencement speaker was none other than Andy Grove.
He basically told them they were all fscked. "Somewhere in India," he said, "there's someone willing to do what you do and more for 1/10 your salary. Sitting next to you are people who will do anything to beat you at your own job," and so on. He talked on and on about how much you have to compete to survive, effectively saying, "your work needs to be your life and you need to expect nothing from it."
And that'd all be well and good, but that same year, he was compensated over $100M, partially because of the cost savings of outsourcing, of forcing his employees to compete ruthlessly for each other, and so on. It seemed disingenuous at best to say, "This is the reality," when it's the decision of him and people like him to enforce that reality.
What this change in tone says to me is that he feels that other companies are beating Intel at the outsourcing racket. Maybe he's upset that Samsung is making Apple's A4 for the iPad and iPhone, and he wishes it had been Intel ARM chips going into those millions of devices over the last quarter or so. Maybe it's something else, but this rings of the spoiled kid down the block leaving the game with his football because his team is losing.
There is another way to run your company. Treat your employees like valued contributors. If they don't contribute, find out if they want to be in another role, or another company and let them do that. But if you're always looking to get the cheapest workers, you're in danger of losing your best people, and being beaten at the bottom dollar game as well.
OK, end of rant.
The CB App. What's your 20?
"We broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution..." Darn straight. I sure wish more company management understood that.
You can document a little, you can document a lot, but you can't ever document everything. Every company relies on stuff in peoples' heads. Reading other peoples' code and then being able to ask them about it. Solving problems at the time they occur by talking to the right person for five minutes in the hallway, instead of writing thirty-page memos and scheduling a series of weekly hour-long meetings, which eight people attend so that two of them can talk.
The guy who says "Well, it worked well when we did it thus-and-such way on the Dash-Twenty-Twos."
Even more important, the guy who says, "Well, the reason we're doing it that way now is because of concerns X, Y, and Z that we had on the Dash Twenty-Twos, but those reasons don't apply any more.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Sigh, I wish this line of reasoning would die the swift death it deserves. Taxes are probably the least controlling way of making these sorts of adjustments. You're not realistically going to vote with your money because there's few if any products which aren't at some stage created in that fashion. A tax is a simple way of shifting the cost curve up in areas which aren't desirable so that the new equilibrium is a bit more responsible. And it works wonders. There's a reason why Seattle beats the crap out of pretty much any other major US city in terms of fuel efficiency. The state legislature instituted high taxes on gas and when combined with the oil industries tendency to screw us over at the pump more than other parts of the state you end up with people making sensible decisions over all.
By taxing them you put people on a more even footing to make informed decisions, it's not telling companies that you can't do it, it's telling them that if they want to do it they'll have to compete on a more even playing field.
And, there is where you show your bias and ignorance of most Americans.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
'Outsourcing' allows smaller firms to take on projects that they otherwise could not afford to do. I own a small business and at least two of my products I could never hope to bring to market if my only option was to use domestic resources. Those products make money and allow me to expand. This is not a burden on the U.S. economy; it is a positive contribution.
The fundamental reason you can't produce your products using domestic resources is not that it would cost too much. It's because you couldn't sell them for enough to cover the costs and make a profit. The reason for that is because Americans today are by and large earning less, because the jobs that paid better are gone. Thus those Americans consume less and so cannot be a source of much profit for business. This is a big reason why the financial services sector has ballooned to 1/3 of our economy, because the other sectors of our economy are dying out and one of the only way to earn large amounts of money is to aggregate other peoples' money (e.g. their savings) and use it for investments. This, however, only makes a small number of people all that much richer, while everyone else continues to participate in a race to the bottom.
The very real problem that perhaps not you, but your children, will need to worry about is this - will Americans be able to afford ANY products our businesses produce? Of course, we all need food, clothing and shelter, but you can't grow an economy if people are only buying the bare necessities. When lots of companies outsource, they're not just reducing their operating costs - by laying off the Americans they used to use to do the job, they're also reducing the number of people who have discretionary income to spend on their products! In small numbers, this is not a horrible thing, but in the past twenty years, something in the range of tens of millions of jobs have been lost, and lots of people have moved from working in factories to working at McDonalds and often working two jobs. In 1960, how many families had two parents working two jobs to make ends meet? It's not uncommon today. Why is that? Obviously, as you yourself have realized, most things Americans can do can be done by people in other countries cheaper, and that mostly just leaves what jobs people MUST be in the US to do, and those jobs tend not to pay very well because they're mostly butt-in-seat jobs.
Unfortunately, each individual company sees in the short term an increase in profits and can't see the long term damage they're doing to themselves, and so they all rush to outsource in search of bigger profits. The big problem facing us is that people like yourselves do not think about the big picture, or, you perceive it as not your problem - you add up the dollars and cents, and if it equals profit, you think it's good. You might want to brush up on your Chinese though, soon they'll be the ones with the money to afford your product. Except that, if the Chinese decide to produce your product without your help (they don't really care about IP), they can probably charge quite a bit less and make an even bigger profit since they don't have to deal with paying an American wage.
Are you serious? Intel is one of the few companies that still fabs most of its chips in the United States (Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon). There are also fabs in Israel and Ireland, but the bulk of the fabbing is done in the US. The packaging is done in Indonesia, China, etc, but that's not where the real money is.
Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
Reducing, I'd prefer them to be abolished, federal income and payroll taxes would allow employers to hire more employees and or pay them more.
Over the past decade or so, we've had great expansion in worker productivity in America, and we also boasted a high GDP. We also had anemic wage growth vs. inflation (especially against the prices of goods such as college education and health care) and nearly non-existant job growth. And this was after two separate substantial tax cut packages near the beginning of the decade. The lessons of the last decade appear to be that there is not always a direct link between job growth and increased business profits / lowered taxes - often, the business's shareholders just pocket those increases. So forgive some of us for being skeptical that additional cuts on payroll taxes will have any major effect.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.