Three Little Words

In today’s column Tom Friedman talks about a U. S. company that’s manufacturing machines that make solar panels. Where are its factories?

Not a single one is in America.

Let’s see: five are in Germany, four are in China, one is in Spain, one is in India, one is in Italy, one is in Taiwan and one is even in Abu Dhabi. I suggested a new company motto for Applied Materials’s solar business: “Invented here, sold there.”

Embarrassingly for a guy who cut his chops as a reporter, Mr. Friedman doesn’t ask the CEO of the business why he’s not building factories in the United States. I’ll give you the answer in three words: adverse business climate.

U. S. companies pay the highest corporate tax rate of any OECD country and the effective tax rate is even higher. I’m a little out of touch now but, believe it or not, I used to be something of an authority on German accounting and tax issues. Unless things have changed, German companies don’t need to depreciate purchases over long periods of time. That can be important for a company that’s doing things (like building factories) rather than living on past glories.

I also doubt that any country in the world has as complex a regulatory environment as the United States. Not only is there the federal government but we have 50 state governments and a maze of county, city, and other local governments, all with their fingers in the regulatory pie.

I note that none of the factories are in the UK or France, either. That suggests to me that issues with organized labor might be at stake, too.

I’m skeptical about the so-called “green jobs” not for the reasons that Tom Friedman presents:

If you read some of the anti-green commentary today, you’ll often see sneering references to “green jobs.” The phrase is usually in quotation marks as if it is some kind of liberal fantasy or closet welfare program (and as if coal, oil and nuclear don’t get all kinds of subsidies). Nonsense. In 2008, more silicon was consumed globally making solar panels than microchips, said Splinter.

but because I don’t think that we’re ready, willing, or, probably, able to create the kind of business climate that the new jobs will require. We’re too busy propping up old companies whose business models failed a quarter century ago. I put the term in quotes because I’m quoting people and that’s what they call industrial jobs that manufacture products that may or may not promote ecological soundness. I think it’s a lousy turn of phrase so I haven’t made it my own.

Based on past performance can you imagine the Obama Administration taking the steps necessary to make creating those jobs as attractive as they are in Germany let alone in China? I can’t. I can, however, imagine them subsidizing companies that import products made in Germany, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Abu Dhabi, and China and touting the relative handful of marketing, sales, and administrative jobs in those companies as green jobs they’ve created.

8 comments… add one
  • My understanding of the corporate tax rate (and I’m reaching into my memory from 2008 election discussions) is that while its nominally the highest, the actual amounts paid make it among the lowest.

    As for Germany being attractive, it’s worth bearing in mind that the German government HEAVILY subsidizes solar, as does China and Spain.

  • That doesn’t comport with my understanding, Alex, which is borne out here. The U. S. has a higher effective corporate tax rate than our European cousins.

  • sam Link

    Any thoughts on labor costs differentials?

  • Labor cost differentials are one of the reasons that I’m skeptical that green jobs created will make up for the jobs lost due to the increased taxes that “cap and trade” represents.

    However, the labor cost differential doesn’t explain why the company in Friedman’s article would elect to build factories in Germany. When total compensation is taken into account labor costs are about a wash.

  • Hmmm… interesting thing turns up though–corporate tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is lower in the U.S. than states with nominally lower rates like Ireland?

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/the-case-for-corporate-tax-reform.php

    Not sure if that’s a valid comparison, though.

  • Have you seen pictures of Friedman’s house? Try a search on images.google.com

    The man is a parasite.

  • steve Link

    Alex-Link below from WSJ. Quote follows…….

    “Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.”

    http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

    Steve

  • Unfortunately, corporate taxes to GDP measures are useless for measuring the likelihood of a company expanding its operations in the United States.

    BTW, there are dozens of possible reasons for the difference. I suspect that a larger proportion of sole proprietorships and other forms of organization that aren’t eligible for corporate taxes might have something to do with it.

Leave a Comment