Paul Keckey, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, in an Associated Press report, “In wake of health care law, employers are reviewing their options on benefits for workers“:

I don’t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ‘We’ve made a decision to drop insurance. What we are hearing in our meetings is, “We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.” We are hearing that a lot.”

Sounds familiar. Right, here’s Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) at the Heritage Foundation’s blogger briefing on Tuesday responding to a question about the Obama Administration granting waivers that allow companies to continue their low-cost health care plans:

What they’re trying to do is keep the first big company from saying, “We give up. We’re not offering health care anymore.” Because the first time, the first large company that does that, then the floodgates are going to open. And tons of companies are just going to say, “We’re paying the fine. We’re not offering health care any more. We’re going to pay our employees more money, plus the fine, and let them find out what they want to get in health care themselves.”…

Whichever company that takes the lead will have been forced into the decision by the new health care law.

Two reports this week drawing attention:

• From the National Association of Manufacturers, “Labor Day 2010: The Impact of Anti-Labor Policies on Working Men and Women“
• From Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute, “Public View on Manufacturing: 2010 Annual Index“

Coverage…

• The Hill, “Uncertainty of Bush tax cuts affects hiring, study states“
• Grand Rapids Press (blog), “Uncertainty over Bush tax cut extension affects hiring, study states“
• Reuters, “Few Americans See Manufacturing as a Career: Survey“

The Manufacturing Institute, in partnership with Deloitte, today published the 2nd annual survey of the American public’s opinions on the manufacturing industry and its future. View the press release here. The 2010 Public Viewpoint on Manufacturing survey reveals that Americans have a strong, positive view of the significance of manufacturing in the United States, but lack faith in the government policies that will keep it strong in the future. The 55 percent of respondents who think the long-term outlook for manufacturing is weaker than today – compared to the 78 percent who see manufacturing as vital to the country’s economic prosperity – may explain why Americans are not encouraged to go into manufacturing.

There is no denying, however, that Americans want to see the U.S. as the world’s greatest manufacturer, and the 18.6 million jobs supported by manufacturing stay here on American soil. They believe that U.S. workers have what it takes to compete, identifying the attributes of a workforce, including work ethic, skills, and productivity, as the top three most important components that could contribute to creating competitive advantage.

However, as companies still report skills shortages in production workers, scientists, and engineers, U.S. manufacturing is at a tipping point. Unless we deploy policies and programs, such as the Manufacturing Skills Certification System to attract, educate and credential our talent pool, American manufacturers will lose our competitive advantage. For more information, contact jwilkins@nam.org or 202-637-3493.

Thank you Robert m. Kimmitt and Matthew J. Slaughter of the Deloitte Center for Cross-Border Investment for writing today’s op-ed in The Washington Post, “How to jump-start American manufacturing,” which examines the interaction of international business operations with the U.S-based manufacturing economy.

Despite the common assertion that U.S. multinationals simply “export jobs” out of the United States, these firms’ expansion abroad has tended to complement their U.S. operations. More international investment and employment in their foreign affiliates has tended to create more U.S. parent company investment and jobs as well. Our calculations from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that from 1988 to 2007, employment in foreign affiliates rose by 5.3 million jobs — while U.S. parent companies added nearly as many positions, 4.3 million. A 2009 study published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy analyzed all U.S. multinationals in manufacturing from 1982 to 2004 and found that each additional dollar in an affiliate’s employee compensation generated, on average, an increase of about $1.11 in employee compensation at its parent company. Each additional dollar in an affiliate’s capital investment generated an average increase of about 67 cents in its parent’s capital investment.

In many U.S. multinationals, foreign and U.S. operations support and strengthen each other. A major reason for this is faster economic growth outside the United States. Rapidly growing countries present vast revenue opportunities for U.S. multinationals, opportunities that tend to boost affiliate and parent activity.

The piece is full of the facts and figures that effectively rebut claims about “shipping jobs overseas.” Unfortunately, in the House’s debate on Tuesday about H.R. 1586, which included $9.6 billion in higher taxes on U.S. companies with foreign operations, proponents of the tax increase barely addressed the issues raised in the op-ed. Instead we got rhetoric, slogans like “closing loopholes.

The truth is U.S.-based businesses with operations abroad and foreign-based businesses with U.S. operations create wealth, serve markets, and employ U.S. workers. The multinationals help us “Make it in America.”

The arguments in the op-ed — and thanks to the Post for publishing it — are aimed at the public and policymakers. Kimmitt and his colleagues at Deloitte have also examined related issues of international investment for their business clients, as piece published in June in Deloitte Review, “Money and Borders: Cross-Border Investments In A Changing Global Marketplace,” which reports:

There are indications that governments are becoming bigger players in economic affairs, and that we are entering an era in which nationalist ambitions will make globalization more difficult to manage. This has profound implications for cross-border investments. How far these trends will go and how they will affect particular industries and markets are open questions. What is clear is the need for companies and funds pursuing cross-border investments to adapt their investment strategies and operations to function effectively at the intersection of government, business and finance.

For more from Deloitte on the global economy, go here.

Earlier posts:

• Raising Costs of Global Business Undermines U.S. Job Creation
• Too Bad House Gave Short Shrift to Tax Competitiveness
• House Votes to Raise Taxes on Jobs Creators, 247-161
• You’ll Take the Money and Like It
• Manufacturers ‘Key Vote’ Against Tax Increases
• Accusing Companies of ‘Exploiting Loopholes’

The Financial Times reports on industry’s concerns about finding enough capable, trained employees to keep operating. From “Ageing workforce creates skills shortages for US manufacturers“:

When Jim McNerney, Boeing’s president, chairman and chief executive, gave a speech on innovation, over lunch at a downtown Chicago hotel recently, he barely referred to the well-publicised woes his company has experienced in recent years in bringing new aircraft to market.

Instead, Mr McNerney focused on a concern for the future.

“Technology-based companies face an impending skills shortage,” he warned.

“This is a global circumstance . . . no single nation can produce enough creativity, talent or knowledge to meet today’s marketplace challenges alone.

“But the problem is growing acute in the United States, where many seasoned and skilled workers are close to retiring and insufficient numbers of capable workers are being prepared to replace them,” Mr McNerney went on.

FT cites a study commissioned by Oracle, Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute, “People & Profitability – A Time For Change,” which substantiated how important a high-quality workforce is to profitable companies.

It’s interesting that Boeing’s McNerney notes the global nature of the skills shortage, a phenomenon we’ve seen just through regular searches of Internet news sources for the term “skills and shortage.” For example:

• Toronto Sun, “Skills shortage to leave Ontarians jobless by 2021: report“
• New Zealand Herald, “Aussie skills shortage prompts new Kiwi exodus fears“
• Inside SAP, “Victoria University working to end skills shortage“: “An agreement between Victoria University and the Singapore Government is working to address the skills shortage in the APAC region.”
• Birmingham Post, England, “Getting youngsters on board for a skills boost.”