CPs to Solve Competitiveness/Economy/stem advanced Manufacturing Networks cp
Download 0.72 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Extend: “Solves Health Care”
- Extend: “Solves Flexibly”
- The CP solves STEM—spills up to the economy.
- They Say: “I-Squared Bad”
- They Say: “Links to Politics”
- They Say: “Outsourcing Turn”
Immigration CP1NC — Immigration CPText: The United States federal government should pass the Immigration Innovation Act.The CP solves—H-1B visas are key to a skilled workforceNowrasteh 15 -- Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, M.S. in economic history from the London School of Economics, “Allow highly skilled immigration and boost the economy,” The Hill, 01-20-2015, Available Online at http://thehill.com/special-reports/immigration-january-21-2015/230169-allow-highly-skilled-immigration-and-boost-the, Accessed 07-18-2017, HK) Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) just introduced the bipartisan Immigration Innovation Act (I-Squared), which aims to liberalize and expand the immigration system for highly skilled workers.¶ As virtually all the research shows, attracting more high-skilled immigrants will stimulate economic growth and job creation by boosting innovation and productivity.¶ Hatch touted I-Squared by writing that even “[t]he president recognizes we face a high-skilled worker shortage that has become a national crisis.” Although there are tight labor markets for some high-tech occupations, the information sector is not one of them, and it’s by no means a national crisis. Wages for computer scientists, many engineers, and scientists are growing more quickly than for other occupations, but wage increases and a tight labor market are not the same as a shortage. ¶ The real benefits of I-Squared wouldn’t come from filling jobs in “shortage” occupations, which don’t exist for most technology occupations, but from increasing the productivity of the American economy. ¶ Economists at Rutgers and Princeton found that a 1-percentage-point increase in college-educated immigrants as a share of the population increased patents per capita by 9 percent to 18 percent. Economists from Harvard and the University of Michigan also found a 10 percent increase in the number of workers with H-1B visas in a city boosts the entire city’s patent output by almost 1 percent, a huge increase given the small numbers of H-1Bs relative to the workforce. They concluded that H-1B workers boost patents and innovation so much that they have a significant effect on long-term economic growth while also creating more jobs for Americans with similar skills.¶ The productivity gains from immigrant inventions and innovations are tremendous. From 1990 to 2010, 10 percent to 25 percent of the total combined productivity growth across 219 American cities was caused by H-1B workers in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) professions. Those large gains occurred not just because of patenting but because skilled immigrants have different skills than Americans with similar educations. A larger, more diversely skilled immigrant workforce in the STEM occupations boosts wages and jobs for American workers.¶ Influential research by University of California, Berkeley, economist Charles Jones found that 50 percent of U.S. productivity growth from 1950 to 1993 could be attributed to growth in the share of scientists and engineers in the workforce. I-Squared’s reforms to the H-1B system could more than triple the annual flow of engineers and scientists into the United States. If history is any guide, I-Squared’s increase in those occupations could jump-start the U.S. economy for decades to come.¶ The bill, of course, does more than liberalize the H-1B visa. It also boosts the number of employment-based green cards for highly skilled immigrants, more than doubling them by creating numerous exemptions. Skilled immigrants with green cards are very entrepreneurial, as are immigrants at every skill level. ¶ Between 1995 and 2005, 25.3 percent of all technology and engineering firms established in the United States had at least one immigrant founder. In Silicon Valley, 43.9 percent of technology and engineering startups had at least one immigrant co-founder between 2005 and 2012. Company creation is a big driver of employment growth and innovation, and immigrants do a lot of it.¶ Hatch is right that I-Squared would boost American economic growth, productivity and create jobs for Americans. However, I-Squared would not fill an urgent labor shortage, as he claims, except in some specialized occupations or regions of the country. ¶ Opponents of I-Squared, however, are far more mistaken. Skilled immigrants do not “take our jobs,” as virtually all economists who study this issue have found. I-Squared would be a big win for the U.S. economy. Let’s just make sure we know the real reasons why that’s true. Extend: “Solves Health Care”CP helps in providing health care to the underserved.Nabavizadeh & Thomas 17—Nima Nabavizadeh, MD Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Charles R. Thomas Jr, MD Department of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, 2017 (“Impact of US Immigration Ban on Oncologists and Patients Oncology Knows No Borders”, American Medical Association, February 15th, Available Online at http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2604120, Accessed on 7-20-17, HL) Unbeknownst to many, this immigration and travel ban may have a disproportionate domestic impact on rural and inner-city citizens of the United States. Immigrants have historically done what no one else wants to do—and this includes providing high-quality medical care for underserved patients. As physician shortages continue in many underserved and geographically isolated regions of the United States, including an oncologist shortage projected by year 2020,1 J1 and H1B visa waivers have been a successful mechanism of bringing young, motivated, and talented physicians to practice in these regions. Many of these clinicians establish long-term practices in these underserved or isolated communities. Undoubtedly, hundreds of currently practicing physicians and physicians-in-training within these visa waiver programs are directly affected by the immigration ban, and the attractiveness of these programs to future international candidates will likely decline. Consequently, patients likely will disproportionally feel the ill effects of these policies because their care will either have to take place at greater distances or be provided by competent but short-term locum tenens physicians. In President Trump’s home state of New York in 2015, there were 477 J1- sponsored physicians caring for hundreds of thousands of patients,2 and although most were not from the countries with travel restrictions, these physicians across primary care and specialty clinics will likely have a more pessimistic outlook on their future and acceptance in the United States regardless of their country of origin. To be clear, this will have an impact on all states. Extend: “Solves Flexibly”CP solves best because it adapts to market fluctuations---I-Squared could encompass a flexible system that adjusts the H-1B visa cap year to yearRuiz and Wilson 13 – Neil G. Ruiz, associate director of research on global migration and demography at Pew Research Center, previously was the executive director of the Center of Law, Economics & Finance at George Washington University, PhD in political science from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Jill H. Wilson, senior research analyst and associate fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution, 2013 (“A Balancing Act for H-1B Visas,” Brookings Institution, 04-18-2017, Available Online at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-balancing-act-for-h-1b-visas/, Accessed 07-23-2017, HK) The annual H-1B visa scramble ended in just five days earlier this month. Due to high employer demand, 39,000 requests for H-1B workers were denied, and the 65,000 available visas were allocated using a lottery system. So it’s wait until next year for those out of luck.¶ However, change is afoot as the proposed comprehensive immigration reform bill from the U.S. Senate’s “Gang of Eight” could rewrite the rules of the H-1B race.¶ The Senate’s proposal attempts a balance between providing American businesses with more visas and protecting American workers. ¶ On the one hand, the provisions almost double the visa cap from 65,000 to 110,000 (close to its level in the late 1990s), as proposed in the Immigration and Innovation Act of 2013 (I-squared), introduced in January. At the same time, it prioritizes the need for American-trained science and tech workers by targeting 25,000 visas for STEM master’s and doctoral graduates and boosting the number from 20,000 in the current law reserved for advanced degree-holders in any field. ¶ On the other hand, it includes features from Sen. Grassley’s H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2013, which raises wages for H-1B workers, requires employers to make an effort to hire American workers first by posting job openings publicly, and prevents abuse of the H-1B program by increasing fees for employers who are heavily dependent on H-1B workers. To further decrease reliance on the program, companies will be banned from employing more than 75 percent of their workers on an H-1B or L-1 visa in 2014, decreasing to 65 percent in 2015, and 50 percent in 2016. ¶ If passed, the bill would replace the static annual cap on H-1B visas with an automatic “H-1B escalator,” similar to what was proposed in the I-Squared Act in January. The new legislation raises or lowers the H-1B visa cap by up to 10,000 visas each year, so long as it never exceeds 180,000 or drops below 110,000. A “High Skilled Jobs Demand Index” would determine the actual amount by which the cap changes from one year to the next, based on changes in the demand for foreign labor and the availability of domestic workers. The Index as currently proposed would be calculated in terms of: (1) the number of H-1B petitions filed in the previous year in excess of the cap, as a share of that year’s cap, and (2) the percent change in the average number of unemployed individuals in “management, professional, and related occupations” (as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics).¶ How would the H-1B escalator apply to the coming year? As we wrote previously, employers sought 39,000 more H-1B visas than were made available under the base cap of 65,000 for FY 2014. According to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unemployed individuals in “management, professional, and related occupations” decreased by 5.7 percent between 2011 and 2012. Using the proposed formula, the cap would increase by 31,463. Yet, because the cap cannot be adjusted by more than 10,000 visas each year, the total number of visas available this coming year would be 65,000 + 10,000 = 75,000.¶ Although the proposed index to set cap levels on H-1B visas is a balanced attempt at incorporating both demand for foreign skilled workers and the supply of the current American workforce, the formula should additionally allow for future adjustments, use unemployment data for more detailed occupational groups, and consider geographic variation.¶ Flexibility is Key. The occupations included in the High Skilled Jobs Demand Index should not be set in stone. The skills America needs may change in five, 10, or 20 years, so tying the visa system to fixed metrics is mistaken. Similar to our recommendations in “The Search for Skills,” the proposal to establish a new statistical agency (the Bureau of Immigration and Labor Market Research, to be housed within the Department of Homeland Security) to use data to designate labor shortages by occupation and location is well founded—as is its mandate to study and make recommendations on the effects of immigrants on the U.S. labor market. Such a body of experts would provide up-to-date analyses to inform future adjustments of immigrant admissions. However, under the new Senate proposal, the bureau is set up to devise its own methodology for changing the cap for the newly-created W visa for lower-skilled positions, but not for H-1B visas. If the High Skilled Jobs Demand Index remains the automatic method for annually adjusting the H-1B cap, the bureau should at least be able to make recommendations on changes to the formula based on occupational and geographic variation in the supply of and demand for high-skilled workers. ¶ Precision Counts. The unemployment rates in the broad “management, professional, and related occupations” category differ significantly from those in more specific occupational categories for which H-1B demand is greatest. For instance, while the number of unemployed individuals seeking jobs in the “management, professional, and related occupations” category declined by 8.8 percent between 2010 and 2011, the decline in unemployment was significantly greater in the two subcategories with greatest H-1B demand. Unemployment in computer occupations declined by 16.9 percent, and among engineers by 23.5 percent (51.0 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively, of all H-1B petitions filed over this period by cap-subject employers were for workers in these occupations). To link supply and demand for labor more precisely, the formula should be based on specific occupational groups rather than the much broader category.¶ Place Matters. As we showed in our report, the demand for H-1B visas varies from place to place. For example, the Columbus, Ind. metropolitan area—which experienced economic growth throughout the recession—has the second-highest intensity of demand for H-1B workers in the nation, driven by engine manufacturer Cummins. In 2010, Columbus had an overall unemployment rate of 6.1 percent and a 3.0 percent rate among those with bachelor’s degrees and above, compared to the respective national rates of 10.8 percent and 5.0 percent in 2010. The annual determination of H-1B admissions levels should take into account metropolitan-level data on employer demand along with regional labor market indicators.¶ In sum, a new system that structures our future immigration flows to better meet the demand for high-skilled workers while at the same time protecting the American workforce is a delicate balancing act worth pursuing. As the bill moves forward in the legislative process, Congress should consider broadening the new statistical bureau’s purview to include H-1B admissions to ensure that the visa system can smartly respond to changing economic needs in the future. Extend: “Solves STEM”The CP solves STEM—spills up to the economy.Seigworth 17—Clifton Seigworth, Ph.D. in Education from Trevecca Nazarene University, 2017 (“Narrowing the Retention Gap of High School Females in an Integrated STEM Program”, ProQuest Dissertations, Available Online at https://search.proquest.com/docview/1916587858/previewPDF/5F80562C44F64DF7PQ/1?accountid=12598, Accessed on 7-18-17, HL) The solution to this problem is not limited to American men or women whether in high school, college, or otherwise. The answer to this problem lies in the desire of many of the superior technology companies and chambers of commerce to see the federal government increase the number of H1B visas granted every year in America (Bertram, 2014). The reason for wanting to see this type of visa increased is these visas are for highly-skilled, non-immigrant work and go to those who are skilled in engineering and mathematics (Bertram, 2014). Bertram (2014) identified an alarming statistic that put the previous statement in perspective which stated, “in the absence of green cards and H1B visa constraints in the 2003-2007 period, roughly 182,000 foreign graduates of U.S. colleges and universities would likely have remained in the country and raised the gross domestic product (GDP) by roughly $13.6 billion” (pp. 11-12). They Say: “I-Squared Bad”I-Squared lobbying is good---the bill is key to solving tech industry shortages and sets the bar for future comprehensive reformBenner 15 – Katie Benner, columnist at Bloomberg View, 2015 (“Obama, Immigration and Silicon Valley,” BloombergView, 01-22-2015, Available Online at http://origin-www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-22/obama-immigration-reform-h-b1-visas-and-silicon-valley, Accessed 07-24-2017, HK) Back in December I attended a talk on immigration with a handful of venture capitalists, lobbyists and entrepreneurs. During that conversation, the idea was floated that politicians might soon attempt to decouple the fight for more H-1B visas from the broader fight to reform the system for undocumented workers.¶ Letting more educated tech workers into the country seemed like an easier political fight to take on for that crowd than dealing with the millions of people who have lived here for years without papers. That approach isn't a slam dunk. Worries abound that H-1B visa holders steal jobs from Americans or work for lower wages, despite the protestations of tech executives.¶ I've also spoken with Joe Lonsdale, a venture investor at Formation 8 and a supporter of FWD.us, a tech industry group that supports comprehensive immigration reform. “Many people in Silicon Valley understand that this is a moral issue,” he told me, adding that illegal immigrants and skilled workers alike should be treated better by our system.¶ But Lonsdale was unwilling to say whether or not the H-1B fight had to be inextricably linked to broader immigration issues.¶ “The one thing I’ll say on policy is that on this issue in particular, both the far left and far right are very problematic,” he said.¶ After the Senate bills were announced last week I spoke with Julissa Arce, the director of development at Define American, an organization that wants to create a more thoughtful conversation about immigration. She said that people in the U.S. tend to have a strong bias against undocumented workers but not against people who come to the U.S. to work in tech.¶ “The unconscious bias is that undocumented workers are stealing jobs,” says Arce. “On the other hand people believe that workers who were born overseas, have a college degree and are ‘highly intelligent,’ should be part of the American workforce.”¶ It doesn’t take much probing to poke holes in that distinction. Thousands of undocumented youths graduate from high school and college in the U.S. How are they different from their peers in India and China applying for their H-1B visas?¶ Nevertheless, Arce says that bias has contributed to the change in approach when it comes to immigration reform. Tech executives and investors understandbly feel that they have no choice but to support a bill that breaks with the strategy of comprehensive reform.¶ “For the tech industry it’s important to get some reform done even if it doesn’t cover everything,” says Deepak Kamra, a venture investor at Canaan Partners.¶ Large tech players like Facebook essentially occupy the same position.¶ "There is no denying the skills gap that threatens the expansion and competitiveness of a sector that has been a tremendous engine of innovation, economic growth and job creation in America. The Immigration Innovation Act addresses this gap,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement. “[We] look forward to working with the Senate to get this bill passed.”¶ These bills aren't guaranteed to become law, of course. Immigration is broadly perceived as a pet project for the White House (especially after Obama moved to lift the immediate threat of deportation for about five million immigrants who currently reside in the U.S. illegally). The Republican-controlled House has vowed to stymie the president’s agenda on all issues, and immigration is a highly visible and contentious matter. Representatives recently voted to block funding tied to Obama’s immigration order.¶ Given how slim the chances are for sweeping reform, I tend to agree that some change is better than none -- even if it arbitrarily and erroneously reinforces the notion of "good immigrants" and "bad immigrants."¶ My hope is that the tech community will still be willing to lobby for the unskilled immigrants whom Arce supports - even if Silicon Valley gets H-1B reform. They Say: “Links to Politics”The bill is bipartisan---Hatch introduced itHattem 15 – Julian Hattem, staff writer at The Hill, 2015 (“Bipartisan Senate bill eyes immigration reform for tech workers,” The Hill, 01-13-2015, Available Online at http://thehill.com/policy/technology/229348-senators-eye-immigration-reform-for-tech-workers, Accessed 07-23-2017, HK) A bipartisan team of senators lent a helping hand to the tech sector on Tuesday by introducing legislation to reform the immigration system for high-skilled workers.¶ The bill, which was first introduced in 2013 but failed to move in Congress, would address a major demand of Silicon Valley firms, who say that current law prevents them from bringing into the U.S. enough skilled programmers to keep up with the demand.¶ The Immigration Innovation Act is “a commonsense approach to ensuring that those who have come here to be educated in high-tech fields have the ability to stay here with their families and contribute to the economy and our society,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) — who is pushing legislation to promote the U.S. tech sector — said in a statement.¶ While comprehensive immigration reform appears to be a non-starter in Congress, many tech lobbyists have expressed hope that a more targeted bill to help out their sector could move, even in a new Congress controlled by Republicans.¶ The issue was listed near the top of many industry groups' to-do lists heading into the year, and the bipartisan support for the new bill may hint at the chances of progress.¶ In addition to Hatch, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) are co-sponsors of the new bill. Flake and Rubio were both members of the Gang of Eight senators who wrote an immigration bill in 2013, which ultimately failed to move in the House.¶ Current law caps the number of high-skilled workers allowed into the U.S. under the H-1B visa program at 65,000 per year.¶ Tech companies have long lobbied for Congress to raise that number, and the new bill would increase it to 115,000. It would also allow the annual cap to increase up to 195,000, depending on demand, and allow spouses of people with those visas to get a job in the U.S.¶ Additionally, the bill would allow the government to reissue green card numbers that have been approved in past years but were never used, and allow more researchers and people with advanced degrees to enter the country.¶ “An immigration system for the 21st century will be judged by whether it provides the conditions for both security and economic growth,” Rubio said in a statement. “The reforms in this legislation lead the way to such a system, which I believe we can ultimately achieve after meeting the immediate challenges of securing our borders and improving internal enforcement.”¶ Multiple industry groups applauded the bill after it was introduced on Tuesday.¶ The head of TechNet, a network of tech industry CEOs, said it addresses “critical components to maintaining economic competitiveness and future job creation,” while the Consumer Electronics Association called it a “a long overdue step” to addressing the industry’s workforce shortage.¶ Congressional critics of more flexibility for high-skilled workers, including Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), have accused tech companies of trying to suppress wages and hire foreigners instead of turning to talented American workers.¶ In a memo distributed around Capitol Hill this week, Sessions called the shortage of qualified candidates for tech jobs a “hoax.” He cited instances of tech companies laying off U.S. workers while calling for more visas and pointed to Census Bureau data that seemed to show that millions of people with science and engineering backgrounds can’t get a job. They Say: “Outsourcing Turn”Outsourcing is complex and can’t be ascribed to immigration---four reasonsHeineman 13 – Ben Heineman Jr., senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, J.D. from Yale Law School, Trusteeand Distinguished Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2013 (“Why We Can All Stop Worrying About Offshoring and Outsourcing,” the Atlantic, 03-26-2013, Available Online at https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/why-we-can-all-stop-worrying-about-offshoring-and-outsourcing/274388/, Accessed 07-26-2017, HK) Labor markets have for the past quarter century been at the center of the globalization disputes under the "off-shoring and out-sourcing" rubric. How many jobs were lost at home to cheap labor abroad? What were conditions for those overseas workers? But the rapidly changing nature of the global economy has changed much, though not all, of that "off-shoring/out-sourcing" debate. Today, cheap labor is only one of many factors leading global companies to choose where to do business in diverse nations across the world. Major economic changes like the internal growth of emerging markets have scrambled debates about the global economy, posed challenges for international business, stimulated contradictory public policies and confused the general public. It was often cheap labor in emerging markets that, more than two decades ago, led companies in developed markets to move company jobs away from the home country either to company owned facilities (off-shoring) or to third parties (out-sourcing) in developing markets. The broad idea was that less expensive manufacturing or inexpensive white collar workers would create goods and services in developing nations that would serve world markets. China, especially, would be the global product-manufacturing center; India, via the web, would be the global service provider. The well known debate ensued between free-trade (more competition, cheaper goods in U.S., growth in developing markets) and fair trade (only wealthy benefit, hollowing out of U.S. middle class, exploitive labor standards overseas). The debate heated up in political years (including 2012), when "outsourcing" became an especially a dirty word. But, in addition to dramatic economic growth in emerging markets, four recent trends have significantly modified this old off-shoring and out-sourcing schematic. First, labor costs for many businesses may no longer be the critical or even primary factor in global location decisions. Wages are rising in many emerging markets due, in part, to increased demand, new labor laws, and greater worker voice. Wages are declining in developed markets like the U.S. where depressed economic conditions for workers have led to lower wage and benefit packages, especially for lower entry level workers, and often through negotiations with organized labor. New technology, such as robotics, and higher productivity have also lowered the price of labor as a percentage of total product or service costs. When labor cost differences are not as dramatic or important, other costs like materials, energy, transportation, currency, capital, government imposed costs (tariffs, regulation) -- which were always important -- may have as great (or greater) impact on the location as cheap workers. Second, companies are retaining but modifying their global supply chains by selectively reversing the long-term trend of outsourcing. They are "making" important parts of the products or services rather than "buying" from third parties, as described recently by U.S. business people and journalists, Companies are recognizing that closely interrelating, even co-locating, research and development, design and marketing, manufacturing and assembly close to the markets served can lead to much faster response to market shifts and to much faster innovation. The old practice of designing at home and then manufacturing abroad can slow the pace of innovation and product change to a crawl. So companies are making complex trade-offs between "making" and "buying" -- and between the need to develop technology at connected global R&D centers and the need to apply it in a variety of local settings in a variety of ways. Similarly, companies which were enamored of outsourcing key service functions like information technology to nations like India are discovering that these, too, are key to fast-paced innovation and should be "made" not "bought" -- bringing them back in-house, with corporate units integrated across the world under global/local management. The "de-verticalizing" outsourcing process - when a company sent many of its functions between raw materials and the finished product to third parties - is now being partially reversed with "re-verticalization." But, even with changes, global supply chains, even if owned more by the company and less by third parties, will remain critical. Even when labor is a still a significant portion of the cost of a product (e.g. textiles, toys, some electronics), there is a growing movement among major, developed world companies, as I have detailed elsewhere, to engage in responsible off-shoring and out-sourcing by adopting labor and quality standards which aim to create decent wages, working conditions and environmental protections as well as more rigorous quality checks. The apparel industry has an off-shoring/out-sourcing code of conduct monitored by a third party, the Fair Labor Association (FLA), a practice now followed by Apple, but not the electronics industry as a whole. But it must be emphasized: there are still great problems in supply chains for low cost products (as demonstrated by last year's deadly factory fire in Bangladesh) and there is a great deal yet to do. Most brand-name, iconic multi-nationals, however, do understand that labor and quality standards are needed -- both in their own overseas facilities for their own employees and in their supply chains -- which will either increase costs or ameliorate some of the worst practices. And, at least for these major companies, this is another factor which may means that decisions about location and employment are not made purely on the cheapest possible labor. Finally, companies' choice of where to do business across the globe is heavily influenced by a witches brew of complex, often contradictory governmental policies at national, regional and local levels. Governments may seek to attract foreign investment yet also discriminate against it. They may promote non-protectionist policies for economic growth (infrastructure, R&D, more open immigration, skilled work force) or they may, especially in a recession, enact protectionist measures. They may, like China, engage in a host of illicit activities - pay-offs, piracy, hidden subsidies -- to promote national champions. Or to counter state capitalism like China's, they may engage in explicit subsidies or tax breaks or subsides or preferences or soft loans to promote domestic business's ability to compete overseas against state supported or state owned companies -- trade promotion ideas which teeter between reasonable competitive measures and bad crony-capitalism. Ultimately, governments may recognize that virtually every other government has its thumb on the scale of economic activity and thus frustrate real global competition which can mean new jobs at home (even if old jobs may suffer). As a result, they may seek new free trade agreements to knock down tariffs and other trade barriers -- as in current major trade talks in the Atlantic (between the U.S. and the EU) and in the Pacific (involving the U.S., Japan and others) -- to stimulate economic growth and also to counter the rising power of China's state capitalism. All these currents and cross-currents in present and evolving government policy have significant impact on location of global business activity. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.72 Mb. Share with your friends:
|