Featured Articles

on April 14, 2008.
The employment patterns of U.S. multinational corporations are undergoing a major transformation. As we showed you last week, between 1999 and 2005, U.S. multinationals increased their foreign employment by a little more than 1 million jobs while eliminating an almost equal number of jobs in the United States. That represents a distinct break from the recent past, when U.S. multinationals steadily created U.S. jobs. ("Offshore Jobs and Taxes: Will Democrats Attack?" Tax Notes, Apr. 7, 2008, p. 24, Doc 2008-7379 , or 2008 TNT 68-13).)
This week, as we focus our attention on where those jobs are going, another interesting fact has come to light: In recent years, the pace of multinational job creation in low-tax countries and low- wage countries has accelerated. U.S. multinational job creation has been faster in those mostly emerging economies than in industrialized G-7 countries — those high-tax, high-wage locations where multinationals have traditionally based most of their foreign operations.
Those findings are consistent with the argument — now most prominently made by presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., — that U.S. tax rules favoring foreign over domestic investment may have some adverse impact on U.S. jobs.
Mixed Bag
The table on the next page is a summary of data available from the U.S. Commerce Department on the activities of U.S. multinational corporations. The countries are ranked by the number of jobs created by U.S. multinationals from 1999 through 2005. The tax rates of "low-tax countries" (those with an average tax rate of less than 25 percent) and compensation rates of "low-wage countries" (those with average annual compensation of $30,000 or less) are bold.
It is hard to discern from a table like this what effect taxes and wage rates have on employment. China, in the top slot, which saw 237,000 new jobs from U.S. multinationals between 1999 and 2005, has both low taxes and low wages. At number 2, India — where U.S. multinationals created an additional 117,000 jobs — has low wages but a tax rate nearly identical to the overall foreign average. The U.K., in third place (101,000 jobs created), has both high wages and high taxes. Fourth-place Canada (75,000 jobs created) is neither low- tax nor low-wage (by our definition), but its wages and tax rates are considerably lower than the U.K.'s.
In the rest of the top 40, we find:
- Four countries with low taxes and low wages: Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Poland;
- Ten countries with low wages (but not low taxes): Brazil, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Russia, South Africa, and Thailand; and
- Ten countries with low tax rates (but not low wages): Australia, Austria, the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Korea, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates.
If you want to argue that countries with low wage rates attract jobs, there are plenty of examples. If you want to argue that countries with low taxes attract jobs, there is plenty of evidence for that as well. But the lack of a clear pattern also indicates that there is a lot more than wages and taxes driving offshore job creation. How else can you explain U.S. corporations' continued investment and hiring in Canada, France, Italy, Japan, and the U.K., where wage rates are high and tax rates, although often lower than in the past, are higher than the foreign average? Among the leading possibilities is that U.S. multinationals move to those locations because they want access and proximity to important product markets. Financial firms, for example, must have a presence in London. Software makers must customize software for their target markets. Specialized maintenance must be performed on exported machinery.
Effect of Low Taxes on Jobs
If we sort the same data by tax rate, the relative importance of low tax rates can be more easily discerned. Figure 1A shows that of the total of nearly 9 million jobs offshore, 2.2 million (25 percent) were in countries with tax rates below 25 percent, and 1.6 million of those (18 percent of total offshore jobs) were in countries with tax rates below 20 percent.
Figure 1B shows that of the 1.2 million offshore jobs created by U.S. multinationals between 1999 and 2005, 521,000 (44 percent) were in countries with tax rates below 25 percent; of those, 367,000 (31 percent) were in countries with tax rates below 20 percent.
Foreign Employment by U.S. Multinational Corporations in 2005 and Growth
Between 1999 and 2005
(by country, ranked by growth between 1999 and 2005)
Employment
Growth Percentage
Between 1999 Change 2005 2005 Average
Level in 2005 and 2005 Between 1999 Average Annual
(thousands) (thousands) and 2005 Tax Rate Compensation
All countries 8,955.8 1,190.0 15% 28.7% $38,958
1 China 489.6 237.2 94% 18.7% $8,750
2 India 179.1 116.9 188% 28.2% $11,167
3 United Kingdom 1,160.6 101.0 10% 46.9% $60,403
4 Canada 1,079.1 74.9 7% 26.2% $39,453
5 Mexico 838.4 57.6 7% 27.2% $13,459
6 France 584.1 53.7 10% 33.2% $49,351
7 Brazil 393.3 44.5 13% 34.3% $19,367
8 Indonesia 102.7 41.1 67% 41.8% $10,750
9 Italy 225.5 37.3 20% 39.9% $51,601
10 Korea 83.0 36.9 80% 22.5% $38,819
11 Poland 94.4 35.9 61% 14.8% $16,123
12 Japan 242.0 34.7 17% 40.2% $83,566
13 Sweden 104.8 32.4 45% 58.0% $63,254
14 Australia 283.9 31.4 12% 16.7% $50,049
15 Russia 55.7 26.7 92% 29.2% $14,219
16 Spain 192.2 25.7 15% 30.8% $46,436
17 Netherlands 184.3 18.8 11% 31.9% $61,042
18 Switzerland 72.7 18.0 33% 13.0% $83,301
19 Thailand 119.6 17.3 17% 25.8% $8,955
20 Czech Republic 59.6 16.1 37% 23.1% $16,762
21 Hong Kong 108.4 14.6 16% 19.7% $36,827
22 Chile 57.2 13.6 31% 20.5% $16,031
23 Finland 25.9 10.7 70% 29.4% $50,541
24 South Africa 65.2 10.2 19% 31.7% $27,086
25 Costa Rica 35.5 10.2 40% 12.3% $13,324
26 Peru 29.4 8.9 43% 29.2% $16,599
27 Israel 40.9 7.9 24% 20.8% $43,936
28 Egypt 21.1 7.8 59% 45.4% $11,232
29 Taiwan 78.8 7.5 11% 23.4% $25,749
30 Philippines 85.5 7.4 9% 31.6% $8,094
31 Dominican Republic 22.2 6.6 42% 17.6% $11,306
32 Denmark 39.0 5.6 17% 45.9% $60,615
33 Colombia 48.6 4.7 11% 26.3% $16,914
34 Ireland 89.0 4.2 5% 6.6% $52,146
35 New Zealand 39.9 4.1 11% 40.6% $37,694
36 Greece 16.8 3.8 29% 40.4% $42,202
37 Austria 36.3 3.5 11% 15.6% $64,408
38 Cayman Islands 10.5 3.0 40% 10.8% $42,857
39 Luxembourg 12.2 2.8 30% 3.9% $51,311
40 United Arab
Emirates 7.0 1.6 30% 51.2% $50,429
41 Panama 15.8 1.1 7% 21.0% $16,582
42 Honduras 18.9 0.8 4% 22.5% $9,524
43 Turkey 31.0 0.3 1% 32.1% $29,032
44 Barbados 1.0 -0.2 -17% 6.3% $30,000
45 Belgium 117.0 -0.3 0% 16.9% $71,726
46 Nigeria 7.8 -0.8 -9% 82.3% $37,436
47 Hungary 52.3 -0.8 -2% 11.6% $18,509
48 Bermuda 2.9 -1.5 -34% 10.8% $78,276
49 Argentina 92.0 -1.8 -2% 42.4% $16,902
50 Singapore 112.5 -2.3 -2% 6.0% $34,711
51 Malaysia 116.3 -2.8 -2% 20.8% $13,087
52 Ecuador 7.2 -3.4 -32% 28.2% $23,333
53 Saudi Arabia 3.7 -3.8 -51% 221.3% $49,459
54 Portugal 30.0 -8.3 -22% 23.3% $35,467
55 Venezuela 53.2 -10.0 -16% 28.7% $21,711
56 Norway 28.5 -20.2 -41% 60.4% $76,421
57 Germany 590.0 -50.6 -8% 66.7% $67,110
Other countries by region
Other Europe 108.1 63.30 141% 24.2% $14,246
Other Africa 59.8 10.80 22% 41.3% $17,776
Other Asia 22.4 3.00 15% 14.3% $13,839
Other Central
America 36.0 17.50 95% 23.6% $8,861
Other South
America 11.3 -0.20 -2% 31.2% $14,425
Other Western
Hemisphere 16.4 2.20 15% 16.8% $29,695
Other Middle East 8.2 1.80 28% 52.8% $43,537
Foreign Employment in Low-Tax Countries
That low-tax countries account for a larger share of the growth in employment rather than of the overall levels of employment indicates a shift in U.S. multinational employment toward low-tax countries. Our data show that between 1999 and 2005, U.S. multinationals' employment in countries with tax rates below 25 percent was nearly three times higher than in the rest of the world - - that is, 31 percent in low-tax countries compared with 11 percent in other countries.
Figure 1B. Percentage of Changes in U.S. Multinational
Foreign Employment in Low-Tax Countries
Effect of Low Wages on Jobs
Taxes, alas, are not everything. When we do a similar analysis and sort the data by annual employee compensation, we see that low wages are also a major attraction for U.S. multinationals.
Figure 2A shows that of the total of nearly 9 million jobs offshore, 3.4 million — or 38 percent — were in countries with average annual compensation below $30,000, and 3.2 million of those (35 percent of total offshore jobs) were in countries with annual wages below $20,000.
Figure 2B shows that of the 1.2 million jobs created between 1999 and 2005, 750,000 — or 63 percent — were in countries with average annual compensation below $30,000; of those, 743,000 (62 percent) were in countries with annual wages below 20 percent. Given those data, it appears that low wages are an even more important factor than low taxes for attracting multinational investment.
The apparently larger effect of wages over corporate taxes on multinational investment should come as no surprise to anybody familiar with the cost structure of a typical business. Wages are almost always a much larger expense for businesses than income taxes. Our data indicate that in 2005, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. multinational corporations paid employees 4.2 times what they paid foreign governments in income taxes.
Figure 2A. Percentage of U.S. Multinational
Foreign Employment in Low-Wage Countries
Figure 2B. Percentage of Changes in U.S. Multinational
Foreign Employment in Low-Wage Countries
Conclusion
The U.S. Labor Department reports 145.97 million employed and 7.82 million unemployed in the United States as of March 2008. Between 1999 and 2005 (the period covered in the data above), the U.S. economy generated 4.2 million new jobs, even though manufacturing jobs declined by 3.1 million over the same period. Even if all 521,000 jobs created by U.S. multinational corporations in low-tax countries over that period were magically transplanted to the United States, the overall employment picture would not be very different. The United States would still have lost a ton of manufacturing jobs. The national unemployment rate would be 4.8 percent instead of 5.1 percent.
But that figure of 521,000 jobs surely would be a considerable overstatement of the effect of favorable U.S. international tax rules on U.S. employment. Many of those jobs in low-tax countries (particularly in low-wage countries) would still be there — or in some other foreign location — even without the tax benefits. And from an employer's view, foreign employment is not always a one-for- one substitute for U.S. employment. So if higher taxes on foreign affiliates of U.S. corporations reduced foreign employment, that change would not necessarily result in more U.S. employment.
In summary, the data presented here strongly suggest that taxes play a role in multinationals' decisions about where to invest and create jobs. But taxes are only one of many factors, and the effect in terms of overall U.S. employment is probably marginal. The data are telling us that U.S. international tax rules have some impact on U.S. jobs, but it is likely that any job losses are measured in thousands rather than millions.
Notes on Data and Calculations
The two sources for most of the data in this article are data sets described in:
- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "U.S. Direct Investment Abroad, Final Results of the 1999 Benchmark Survey," Mar. 2004.
- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "U.S. Direct Investment Abroad: Operations of U.S. Parent Companies and Their Foreign Affiliates, Preliminary 2005 Estimates," undated.
The best starting point on the Web for working with these data is the files listed under "Comprehensive Financial and Operating Data" at http://www.bea.gov/scb/account_articles/international/iidguide.htm#USDIA1.
All data presented here are for majority-owned affiliates of U.S. multinational corporations.
The effective tax rate is the ratio of foreign income tax to before-tax profit. Before-tax profit is equal to net income minus income from equity investments plus income taxes. Those data come from Table 3E1 of the 1999 and 2005 surveys.
Average annual compensation is total employment compensation divided by the number of employees. Those data come from Table 3H1 of the 1999 and 2005 surveys.
The calculations presented in the figures are derived directly from the data shown in the table, sorted by tax rate (for figures 1A and 1B) and by wage rate (for figures 2A and 2B).
Employment statistics for the U.S. economy as a whole and for the manufacturing sector come from the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov).
About Tax Analysts
Tax Analysts is an influential provider of tax news and analysis for the global community. Over 150,000 tax professionals in law and accounting firms, corporations, and government agencies rely on Tax Analysts' federal, state, and international content daily. Key products include Tax Notes, Tax Notes Today, State Tax Notes, State Tax Today, Tax Notes International, and Worldwide Tax Daily. Founded in 1970 as a nonprofit organization, Tax Analysts has the industry's largest tax-dedicated correspondent staff, with more than 250 domestic and international correspondents. For more information, visit our home page.
For reprint permission or other information, contact communications@tax.org



