Even major global powers won’t use hsr, China is failing

The US is still the leader in competitiveness—the world economy goes down with us.

Worried that we’re falling behind in the world economy, and that other nations, like maybe China, are pulling ahead of us? Relax. Here’s reassurance from IMD, the international business school in Lausanne, Switzerland: The findings of its annual World Competitiveness Yearbook are just out, and they show that the only place that can touch us is a relative pygmy, Hong Kong.¶ IMD ranked 59 economies across the world, measuring “how well countries manage their economic and human resources to increase their prosperity.” It used 329 ranking criteria, a third of them arising from a survey of more than 4,200 international executives. The 10 most competitive nations, with their scores relative to the first-place finisher, are:¶ 1. Hong Kong. Score: 100.00¶ 2. USA: 97.75¶ 3. Switzerland: 96.68¶ 4. Singapore: 95.92¶ 5. Sweden: 91.39¶ 6. Canada: 90.29¶ 7. Taiwan: 89.96¶ 8. Norway: 89.67¶ 9. Germany: 89.26¶ 10. Qatar: 88.48¶ ¶ The 10 Hardest Jobs to Fill in America¶ Jacquelyn Smith¶ Forbes Staff¶ ¶ The Red Hot Heart of Leadership¶ August Turak¶ Contributor¶ Last year the U.S. and Hong Kong were tied for first place, and Singapore, Sweden, and Canada were respectively third, fourth, and fifth. The last-place finisher is Venezuela, with a score of 31.45. It’s the only country to do worse than poor, beleaguered Greece (43.05). Mainland China, in case you were wondering, is No. 23, down from 19 last year. The rankings’ authors observe that in Europe, Ireland (20), Iceland (26), and Italy (40) look better positioned to recover economically, judging by the numbers, than Spain (39), Portugal (41), or Greece (58).¶ Prof. Stephane Garelli, director of IMD’s World Competitiveness Center, says, “U.S. competitiveness has a deep impact on the rest of the world because it is uniquely interacting with every economy, advanced or emerging. No other nation can exercise such a strong ‘pull effect’ on the world. Europe is burdened with austerity and fragmented political leadership and is hardly a credible substitute, while a South-South bloc of emerging markets is still a work in progress. In the end, if the U.S. competes, the world succeeds.”

Alt Causality to US economic competitiveness:

First, healthcare costs.

Toni Johnson, March 26, 2012. “Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness.” Council on Foreign Relations- The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. Toni Johnson is a Senior Editor and Senior Staff Writer. She has been a reporter for Congressional Quarterly and Washington’s Federal Paper. She has a masters in international affairs from American University. She has been part of International Reporting Project at John Hopkins University.

The United States spends an estimated $2 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average, and yet ranks with Turkey and Mexico as the only OECD countries without universal health coverage. Some analysts say an increasing number of U.S. businesses are less competitive globally because of ballooning healthcare costs. U.S. economic woes have heightened the burden of healthcare costs both on individuals and businesses. The U.S. healthcare reform law signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010 includes measures aimed at making health care less expensive and more accessible, including upgrades to government-run Medicare and Medicaid. Still, reforming health care has proved politically divisive, especially over the option to expand social medicine, as well as new mandates on employers and individuals. The Supreme Court will hear arguments starting March 26, 2012 on whether the law is unconstitutional, amid calls by the law's detractors to repeal it entirely. Whether these reforms will reduce the healthcare cost burden on U.S. industry remains under debate.¶ Competitive Disadvantage¶ The United States spent more than 17 percent of its GDP on health care, higher than any other developed nation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2008 that number would rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law (PDF). Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report says access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF) among low-income workers, and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade (PDF). Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.¶ Some economists say these ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace. For large multinational corporations, footing healthcare costs presents an enormous expense. General Motors, for instance, covers more than 1.1 million employees and former employees, and the company says it spends roughly $5 billion on healthcare expenses annually. GM says healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every automobile it makes. Health benefits for unionized auto workers became a central issue derailing the 2008 congressional push to provide a financial bailout to GM and its ailing Detroit rival, Chrysler.

Second, lack of proficiency in STEM fields tanks competitiveness

Department of Labor, April 2007. “The STEM Workforce Challenge: The Role of the Public Workforce System in a National Solution for a Competitive Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Workforce.” The Untied States Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration by Jobs for the Future. http://www.doleta.gov/youth_services/pdf/STEM_Report_4%2007.pdf

There is broad consensus that the long-term key to continued U.S. competitiveness in an increas- ingly global economic environment is the adequacy of supply and the quality of the workforce in the STEM fields. Scientific innovation has produced roughly half of all U.S. economic growth in the last 50 years (National Science Foundation 2004). The STEM fields and those who work¶ in them are critical engines of innovation and growth: according to one recent estimate, while only about five percent of the U.S. workforce is employed in STEM fields, the STEM workforce accounts for more than fifty percent of the nation’s sustained economic growth (Babco 2004). Opinion leaders and the public broadly agree that education in math and science is critical to the nation’s future success. According to a recent Educational Testing Service survey, 61 percent of opinion leaders and 40 percent of the general public identify math, science and technology skills as the most important ingredients in the nation’s strategy to compete in the global economy (Zinth 2006).¶ This engine of growth is increasingly precarious in today’s global economy. The Business Round- table (2005) warns that, if current trends continue, more than 90 percent of all scientists and engineers in the world will live in Asia. The Business-Higher Education Forum (2005) concludes: “Increased global competition, lackluster performance in mathematics and science education, and a lack of national focus on renewing its science and technology infrastructure have created a new economic and technological vulnerability as serious as any military or terrorist threat.” The seminal National Academy of Sciences study, Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2006), argues that, absent a serious and rapid response, the U.S. will lose quality jobs to other nations, lowering our standard of living, reducing tax revenues, and weakening the domestic market for goods and services. Once this cycle accelerates, it will be difficult to regain lost preeminence in technology- driven innovation and its economic benefits.¶ The STEM education and workforce challenge is multi-faceted.¶ • Many students never make it into the STEM pipeline, because of inadequate preparation in math and science or poor teacher quality in their K-12 systems. Of the 2005 high school graduates who took the ACT test, for example, only 41 percent achieved the College Readiness Benchmark in mathematics and 26 percent achieved that benchmark in science (ACT 2006).¶ • Many who are academically qualified for postsecondary studies in science and math fields at both the two- and four-year levels, don’t pursue those programs: They might be dissuaded by disappoint- ing postsecondary experiences, high tuition or demanding curricula and courses of study, relatively low salaries in STEM fields compared to other professions, or the lack of role models with whom they can identify (American Association of State Colleges and Universities 2005). Whatever the rea- sons, trends in undergraduate and graduate enrollment in the biological, engineering, and physical sciences are troubling, as modest growth in STEM field degree graduates is being eclipsed by more dramatic growth in graduates from non-STEM programs (U.S. Govern- ment Accountability Office 2005).¶ • The low engagement with STEM-related learning is particularly acute among minority, female, and lower-income students, who comprise a growing proportion of the total college-going public. In the 2000 National Assessment of Educational Progress for twelfth grade students, about three out of four white and Asian students scored at or above basic level (which is far below proficient) on the math assessment, while fewer than half of Hispanics and under a third of African American students attained that level (National Science Foundation 2005).

No impact to economic decline – empirically proven

Ferguson, 2006 (Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct)

Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends: