President Obama’s State of the Union speech focused in large part on the troubled global economy and the way forward for America. His emphasis was on the continued maintenance of the “American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college and put a little away for retirement.”
President Obama decried corporations who outsource jobs to other countries and the countries that welcome those jobs as two of the biggest threats to the continued viability of the American dream. First, the president promised to make it more costly for companies to move “jobs and profits overseas” by adjusting the tax code. Second, the president vowed to form a Trade Enforcement Unit “that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China.” The president’s faith in the American worker was clear: “Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.”
But in casting global trade in terms of a simple win/lose proposition, the president missed a wonderful opportunity to show that Americans need not be made better off at the expense of other countries. During the speech, Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of former Apple executive Steve Jobs, sat as a guest of the First Lady. And as it turns out, there are some important lessons for us to take to heart from Steve Jobs’ success as an innovator and technology magnate. Few would argue with the fact that Apple products have made the lives of millions of Americans more productive and enjoyable. But Jobs’ own insights belie the president’s mandate for American business leaders, which amounts to: “Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country.”
As the New York Times reported earlier this week, early last year the president inquired of Steve Jobs why over 150 million iPads, iPhones and other products sold by Apple last year were made in other countries. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” Jobs reportedly said. The president’s State of the Union speech made it seem as if the lower costs of labor and tax avoidance strategies are the only reasons that firms send jobs offshore. But according to the Times, “It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.” The reality is that a complex of factors, including the cost of living in America, worker expectations, collective-bargaining realities and educational shortfalls have combined to put America, at least in some cases, at a competitive disadvantage. This is a disadvantage that has nothing to do with getting “tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas.”
It is a disadvantage that goes to the heart of what makes companies like Apple successful. As “a current Apple executive" said in the Times story, “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems. Our only obligation is making the best product possible.” If American workers can help companies provide the best services and products, then companies will come here and hire them without presidential prompting. But if workers in China or India can help these companies fulfill their purpose, then those companies will create jobs in China or India. The only way to truly promote global development is to allow companies to determine what is best for their own products and customers.
This is a critical issue for Christians seeking to live justly in a global society. The president’s basic message advocated forms of protectionism, seeking to favor American companies at the expense of workers in other nations. The president wants to see “millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia and South Korea.” But if Americans want other nations to be free to buy their products, the basic morality of the Golden Rule (as well as economic common sense) holds that Americans should likewise be free to buy products made in other nations. And as the success of the iPhone in America shows - and as Apple executives put it - “it is a mistake to measure a company’s contribution simply by tallying its employees.”
This is the real lesson that Steve Jobs teaches us about jobs and our true state of the union.
(Photo of President Obama with director of speechwriting Jon Favreau courtesy of Pete Souza/Whitehouse.gov.)





Leave a comment
A login account is required to leave a comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (6)
Any authentic response, that is one that extends beyond the pieties of free enterprise of a certain austrian bent, must confront these questions.
Now, Ballor is right that these changes are structural. That is abundantly detailed in the recent issue of The Atlantic and Adam Davidson's article "Making it in America."
Finally, the notion that corporate obligation only extends to the shareholders simply closes the eyes to the social reality that is everywhere testified to. A corporate prosperity that ignores its community is at best a rent-seeking from the social investment of others, at worst it's little more than a sort of strip-mining of intellectual property.
Finally, the notion that corporate obligation only extends to the shareholders simply closes the eyes to the social reality that is everywhere testified to.
When did we do away with the idea of "stakeholders"—the concept that a business is responsible not just to those who hold its capital, but to those who work for it, the nation and community as a whole, and the environment?
When did we accept as "normal" the idea that a business's only responsibility is to increase the value of the capital held by the capitalists who own it?
When did we get it into our heads that if a company's value would increase by its screwing its workers, abandoning its community, or betraying its nation, it was the fault of the victim for failing to conform to the needs of the capitalists—and not the victimizer for making "shareholder value" the overwhelming interest?
In short—when did we accept business as an amoral enterprise?
There is absolutely nothing in that view that is in any way compatible with the basic Christian teaching that Christ is sovereign over all the world, and that loving one's neighbor as oneself is a moral law that is binding on every human endeavor.
Love of oneself over all other things—and, by extension, love of the wealth of shareholders (those who, in a capitalist system, "are" the business) over all things—is not an ideology of Christ. Love of self over all things is an ideology of the Enemy.
Thus, it is the duty of all Christians who truly believe that Christ is sovereign over all enterprises to denounce this ideology—that a business exists solely to enrich the holders of its capital—for the Satanic lie that it is.
It is the duty of all Christians to make it clear that business, like any other human endeavor, is subject to the moral law that one love one's neighbor as oneself, and that a business is morally obligated to be just as concerned (if not more so) about the well-being of its neighbors—its workers, the community, the nation, the world—as it is about increasing the value of its capital.
American workers pay taxes so that American Capitalists can move factories to China and deduct the costs of the move. The only solution is an import duty on consumer goods and sub assemblies.
You are right about some of the advantages. But I do think we need to be careful about importing, in a kind of neo-colonialist fashion, our expectations about work into the context of developing countries. You needn't be "of a certain austrian bent" to see that many Chinese people would rather work in a factory like those Apple uses than continue working as subsistence farmers, or worse.
The perfect ideal of middle-class blue collar workers in America can be something that the rest of the world aspires to (although I think the president's ruminations on the American dream/promise are rather fanciful and limiting), but you don't get there overnight or by legislative fiat. This is precisely the point that Nick Kristof has made over and over again vis-a-vis sweatshops: people are faced with concrete choices, and manufacturing in the developing world in many ways broadens the range of actual options. The "perfect" shouldn't be the enemy of the good, or even relatively better.
For more on working toward an "authentic response," (other than say, import duties) I urge you to follow-up here:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/28488-i-iphone.html
And when did I say "corporate obligation extends only to shareholders"? Or are you reading everything through a lens of "a certain austrian bent"?
js
Leave a Comment »