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.'"

9 of 565 comments (clear)

  1. Treat it like other wars... by bl4nk · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and enter it with reckless abandon and no exit strategy; that last part is crucial.

  2. Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
  3. how is it by nimbius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  4. the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Grove is a two faced .... by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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."

      Of course he did. When he was CEO of Intel, his job was to do what was best for Intel. Now that he is not the CEO of Intel, he is looking at a different picture: what is best for the USA. There is nothing two-faced about it.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    2. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by cherokee158 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He was still an American when he was CEO of Intel. Shouldn't his duty to his country take priority over his duty to his employer?

  6. Re:Is Grove running for office? by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 /dev/random (may take some time)
  7. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the stand point of double taxation of foreign profits in the US, you are much better creating your corporate HQ somewhere like the Isle of Man or the Caymens, et. al. and then creating a separate US entity. Then your profits made in other countries are taxed in those countries, but if you send the profits to the Caymens you aren't taxed again on those profits.

    As it works now, if you are HQed in the US and have different operating units in other countries, you pay the taxes in those countries. Then any remaining profits sent back to the US are taxed again by the IRS. So the US company is being taxed for the profits made in the UK, Germany, Russia, or wherever.

    In most countries, if their company makes profits in the US, they aren't taxed again back home when they bring the profit back.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.