Actually, tax rates could be adjusted to bring highly skilled jobs back.
You could reduce the tax rates to zero and it would have at most a marginal impact. The biggest driver by far is wages and benefits.
Really? Labor costs in China of something like an iPhone or an Xbox are around $6; in the US it would be about $25 more (based upon productivity of the typical US worker versus the typical Chinese worker; it's not a 1-to-1 conversion). The cost of corporate income tax on that $300 product is well in excess of the increase. A huge amount of the offshoring I've been involved in has been because of corporate income taxation; in the case of the aforementioned iPhone, it's $120 for the US-built and sold unit, versus effectively zero for the China-built and sold unit.
If labor rates in China rise substantially (and they have been) you will see the business move back across the Pacific or elsewhere. Anything the President of Congress does will be a very tiny impact by comparison.
You are already most of China's business run out of Hong Kong or Singapore (both of which enjoy special privileges with China in terms of setting up shop) because of the tax-free advantage your company has. You only pay tax on the work done within HK or Singapore; manufacture in China, sell through HK or Singapore and you save a ton of cash.
Actually, tax rates could be adjusted to bring highly skilled jobs back. Corporate tax rates are rather high in the US, especially when compared to the other G20 nations. Cut the corporate income tax rate down to a reasonable level (the average of the EU, or the G20) - or better yet, eliminate it as corporate taxes are a small percentage of the total Federal revenues - and you'll see highly skilled, hard-to-automate jobs flood back into the US.
And that is something the President and Congress are most definitely in control of - taxation.
Hi there, previous China resident for 6 years, and now spend half-time there... Heavily involved in manufacturing within China.
There is a HUGE push towards automation within China, mainly as a means to lower costs (to stay competitive with Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand) as well as to increase quality. A serious issue under consideration from most of the provincial-and-down Governments is employment (not so much with the Beijing elite, yet) - job growth is stagnating in the face of automation. I've seen dozens of factories move from highly manual production lines of 60-70 workers per line to semi-and-fully automated lines where you need 3-4 workers per line to keep the machines fed.
One supplier in particular, just outside of Shanghai, is proud of the fact it's been able to automate their assembly of speakers to such a degree that they have reduced workforce by 70% - whilst reducing floorspace by 50% and INCREASING production volumes and revenues by 30%. All within the last 3 years. Profit is also up considerably, and as they are a publicly traded company (listed on the Shanghai exchange), their stock has seen significant gains in the last 3 years.
China is heavily automating, not just for cost but for quality. Employees come in hung over, pissed off at their boyfriend (most assembly lines are staffed with women), tired, or sick - and quality/consistency suffers. Machines don't have those issues. You get higher quality - which means fewer rejects, leaner operations, and happier customers. It is only a matter of time before the other SE Asian countries start their path towards automation as well as a means to combat China's increasing quality push. Lower cost labor won't help there...
Check out the JAG program which awarded $280 million last year to non-Federal police officers. Meaning State and local cops. The Feds don't have to employ the local police or Government office if they fund it - and use the power of the purse strings to control the office/officer. Same with schools, much of the roads, etc. The Fed uses the power of their purse to get what they want.
Cut the purse strings if you want real local Government. Otherwise there's a good chance your local Government is funded nearly as much by the State and Federal treasuries as it is from the local residents.
I don't think that Google takes away the consumer's choice in the way Microsoft's policies do. Microsoft doesn't provide links to competitors' software
Curiously I just went to bing.com and typed in "office software suite". First link was to a review site. Second link? OpenOffice.org! Microsoft's Office suite doesn't even show up in the first page. I know I'm a bit surprised...
Because your fixated on whether there is competition. Whether or not there is competition is beside the point. If your bank forces you to open savings accounts and credit cards with them to have a mortage that bundling is anti-consumer and illegal... period. Because that sort of product tying has been deemed harmful.
What does Google bundle with its search engine? I do not need to use Chrome to access Google search. I do not have to have a GMail account, nor use Google+. I can use Google Search from iOS or Windows Phone or Blackberry OS. What is the bundling that you're concerned about?
"Most people would like to be delivered from temptation but would like it to keep in touch." -- Robert Orben
